Dataset Information

MHealth Technology Use and Implications in Historically Underserved and Minority Populations in the United States: Systematic Literature Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The proportion of people in the United States who are members of at least two ethnic groups is projected to increase to 10% by the year 2050. This makes addressing health disparities and health inequities in minority populations increasingly more difficult. Minority populations, including those who classify themselves as African American and Hispanic, are using mobile phones to access health information via the internet more frequently than those who classify themselves as white, providing unique opportunities for those in public health and health education to reach these traditionally underserved populations using mobile health (mHealth) interventions.

Objective

The objective of this review was to assess studies conducted in the United States that have used mHealth tools and strategies to develop and implement interventions in underserved populations. This review also examines the ways in which mHealth strategies are being employed in public health interventions to these priority population groups, as mobile phone capabilities include text messaging, mobile apps, internet access, emails, video streaming, social media, instant messaging, and more.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using key search phrases, the matrix method, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flowchart diagram to identify key studies conducted between the years of 2009-2016 in the United States. These studies were reviewed for their use of mHealth interventions in historically underserved and minority populations.

Results

A total of 16,270 articles were initially identified using key search phrases in three databases. Titles were reviewed and articles not meeting criteria were excluded, leaving 156 articles for further review. After additional review for relevance and inclusion criteria, 16 articles were qualified and analyzed.

Conclusions

mHealth is a promising area of development for public health and health education. While successful research has been done using text messaging (short message service, SMS) and other mHealth strategies, there is a need for more research using mobile phones and tablet applications. This literature review demonstrates mHealth technology has the ability to increase prevention and health education in health disparate communities and concludes that more specified research is needed.

SUBMITTER: Anderson-Lewis C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6028762 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

mHealth Technology Use and Implications in Historically Underserved and Minority Populations in the United States: Systematic Literature Review.

Anderson-Lewis Charkarra C Darville Gabrielle G Mercado Rebeccah Eve RE Howell Savannah S Di Maggio Samantha S

JMIR mHealth and uHealth 20180618 6

<h4>Background</h4>The proportion of people in the United States who are members of at least two ethnic groups is projected to increase to 10% by the year 2050. This makes addressing health disparities and health inequities in minority populations increasingly more difficult. Minority populations, including those who classify themselves as African American and Hispanic, are using mobile phones to access health information via the internet more frequently than those who classify themselves as whi ...[more]

PMID: 29914860

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is common during pregnancy and the postpartum. Perinatal home visitation provides favorable conditions in which to identify and support women affected by IPV. However, the use of mHealth for delivering IPV interventions in perinatal home visiting has not been explored.ObjectiveOur objective was to conduct a nested qualitative interpretive study to explore perinatal home visitors' and women's perceptions and experiences of the Domestic Violence Enhanced Home Visitation Program (DOVE) using mHealth technology (ie, a computer tablet) or a home visitor-administered, paper-based method.MethodsWe used purposive sampling, using maximum variation, to select women enrolled in a US-based randomized controlled trial of the DOVE intervention for semistructured interviews. Selection criteria were discussed with the trial research team and 32 women were invited to participate. We invited 45 home visitors at the 8 study sites to participate in an interview, along with the 2 DOVE program designers. Nonparticipant observations of home visits with trial participants who chose not to participate in semistructured interviews were undertaken.ResultsWe conducted 51 interviews with 26 women, 23 home visiting staff at rural and urban sites, and the 2 DOVE program designers. We conducted 4 nonparticipant observations. Among 18 IPV-positive women, 7 used the computer tablet and 11 used the home visitor method. Among 8 IPV-negative women, 7 used the home visitor method. The computer tablet was viewed as a safe and confidential way for abused women to disclose their experiences without fear of being judged. The meanings that the DOVE technology held for home visitors and women led to its construction as either an impersonal artifact that was an impediment to discussion of IPV or a conduit through which interpersonal connection could be deepened, thereby facilitating discussion about IPV. Women's and home visitors' comfort with either method of screening was positively influenced by factors such as having established trust and rapport, as well as good interpersonal communication. The technology helped reduce the anticipated stigma associated with disclosing abuse. The didactic intervention video was a limiting feature, as the content could not be tailored to accommodate the fluidity of women's circumstances.ConclusionsUsers and developers of technology-based IPV interventions need to consider the context in which they are being embedded and the importance of the patient-provider relationship in promoting behavior change in order to realize the full benefits. An mHealth approach can and should be used as a tool for initiating discussion about IPV, assisting women in enhancing their safety and exploring help-seeking options. However, training for home visitors is required to ensure that a computer tablet is used to complement and enhance the therapeutic relationship.ClinicaltrialClinicaltrials.gov NCT01688427; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01688427 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6limSWdZP).

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes mellitus affects almost 10% of U.S. adults, leading to human and financial burden. Underserved populations experience a higher risk of diabetes and related complications resulting from a combination of limited disposable income, inadequate diet, and lack of insurance coverage. Without the requisite resources, underserved populations lack the ability to access healthcare and afford prescription drugs to manage their condition. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the findings from cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in underserved populations.MethodsOriginal, English, peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in U.S. underserved populations were obtained from 8 databases, and PRISMA 2009 reporting guidelines were followed. Evidence was categorized as strong or weak based on a combination of GRADE and American Diabetes Association guidelines. Internal validity was assessed by the Cochrane methodology. Studies were classified by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as very cost-effective (ICER≤US$25,000), cost-effective (US$25,000<ICER≤US$50,000), marginally cost-effective (US$50,000<ICER≤US$100,000) or cost-ineffective (ICER>US$100,000). Reporting and quality of economic evaluations was assessed using the CHEERS guidelines and Recommendations of Second Panel for Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, respectively.FindingsFourteen studies were included. All interventions were found to be cost-effective or very cost-effective. None of the studies reported all 24 points of the CHEERS guidelines. Given the considered cost categories vary significantly between studies, assessing cost-effectiveness across studies has many limitations. Program costs were consistently analyzed, and a third of the included studies (n = 5) only examined these costs, without considering other costs of diabetes care.InterpretationCost-effectiveness studies are not based on a standardized methodology and present incomplete or limited analyses. More accurate assessment of all direct and indirect costs could widen the gap between intervention and usual care. This demonstrates the urgent need for a more standardized and comprehensive cost-effectiveness framework for future studies.