Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Date Submitted: Dec 8, 2023
Date Accepted: Sep 6, 2024

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Qualitative Evaluation of mHealth Implementation for Infectious Disease Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Narrative Review

Greenall-Ota J, Yapa HM, Fox G, Negin J

Qualitative Evaluation of mHealth Implementation for Infectious Disease Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Narrative Review

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2024;12:e55189

DOI: 10.2196/55189

PMID: 39670953

PMCID: 11660726

Qualitative evaluation of mHealth implementation for infectious disease care in low- and middle-income countries: a narrative review

  • Josephine Greenall-Ota; 
  • H. Manisha Yapa; 
  • Gregory Fox; 
  • Joel Negin

ABSTRACT

Background:

mobile health (mHealth) interventions have potential to improve health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) by aiding health workers strengthen service delivery, and patients and communities manage and prevent diseases. It is crucial to understand how best to implement mHealth within already burdened health services, to maximally improve health outcomes and sustain the intervention in LMIC.

Objective:

We aimed to identify key barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of mHealth interventions for infectious diseases in LMIC, drawing on a health systems analysis framework.

Methods:

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist to select qualitative or mixed methods studies reporting on determinants of already implemented infectious disease mHealth interventions in LMIC. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index and Global Health. We extracted characteristics of the mHealth interventions and implementation experiences, followed by an analysis of determinants using the Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases Framework.

Results:

We identified 10494 titles for screening, among which 20 studies met our eligibility criteria. Nine studies examined mHealth smartphone applications, and 11 examined Short Messaging Services interventions. The interventions addressed HIV (n=7), malaria (n=4), tuberculosis (n=4), pneumonia (n=2), dengue (n=1), HPV (n=1), COVID-19 (n=1) and respiratory illnesses or childhood infectious diseases (n=2), with two studies addressing multiple diseases. Ten interventions were intended for use by health workers and the remainder targeted patients, at-risk individuals or community members. Access to reliable technological resources, familiarity with technology and training and support were key determinants of implementation. Additional themes included mHealth intervention design affecting ease of use, or users forgetting to use the mHealth interventions.

Conclusions:

Limitations in the design of mHealth technologies are barriers to widespread adoption, in addition to infrastructure and other health system challenges. Understanding the interaction between mHealth interventions, its implementation, and health systems will improve their uptake in LMIC.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Greenall-Ota J, Yapa HM, Fox G, Negin J

Qualitative Evaluation of mHealth Implementation for Infectious Disease Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Narrative Review

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2024;12:e55189

DOI: 10.2196/55189

PMID: 39670953

PMCID: 11660726

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.