Dataset Information

Implementation barriers for mHealth for non-communicable diseases prevention and management in low and middle income countries: a scoping review and field-based views from implementers.

ABSTRACT: Background: Mobile health (mHealth) has been hailed as a potential gamechanger for non-communicable disease (NCD) management, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Individual studies illustrate barriers to implementation and scale-up, but an overview of implementation issues for NCD mHealth interventions in LMICs is lacking. This paper explores implementation issues from two perspectives: information in published papers and field-based knowledge by people working in this field. Methods: Through a scoping review publications on mHealth interventions for NCDs in LMICs were identified and assessed with the WHO mHealth Evidence Reporting and Assessment (mERA) tool. A two-stage web-based survey on implementation barriers was performed within a NCD research network and through two online platforms on mHealth targeting researchers and implementors. Results: 18 studies were included in the scoping review. Short Message Service (SMS) messaging was the main implementation tool. Most studies focused on patient-centered outcomes. Most studies do not report on process measures and on contextual conditions influencing implementation decisions. Few publications reported on implementation barriers. The websurvey included twelve projects and the responses revealed additional information, especially on practical barriers related to the patients' characteristics, low demand, technical requirements, integration with health services and with the wider context. Many interventions used low-cost software and devices with limited capacity that not allowing linkage with routine data or patient records, which incurred fragmented delivery and increased workload. Conclusion: Text messaging is a dominant mHealth tool for patient-directed of quality improvement interventions in LMICs. Publications report little on implementation barriers, while a questionnaire among implementors reveals significant barriers and strategies to address them. This information is relevant for decisions on scale-up of mHealth in the domain of NCD. Further knowledge should be gathered on implementation issues, and the conditions that allow universal coverage.

SUBMITTER: van Olmen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7194478 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation barriers for mHealth for non-communicable diseases management in low and middle income countries: a scoping review and field-based views from implementers.

van Olmen Josefien J Erwin Erica E García-Ulloa Ana Cristina AC Meessen Bruno B Miranda J Jaime JJ Bobrow Kirsty K Iwelunmore Juliet J Nwaozuru Ucheoma U Obiezu Umeh Chisom C Smith Carter C Harding Chris C Kumar Pratap P Gonzales Clicerio C Hernández-Jiménez Sergio S Yeates Karen K

Wellcome open research 20200416

<b>Background</b>: Mobile health (mHealth) has been hailed as a potential gamechanger for non-communicable disease (NCD) management, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Individual studies illustrate barriers to implementation and scale-up, but an overview of implementation issues for NCD mHealth interventions in LMIC is lacking. This paper explores implementation issues from two perspectives: information in published papers and field-based knowledge by people working in this f ...[more]

PMID: 32399497

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Health education programmes (HEPs) have been associated with a number of benefits. These include providing individuals with information on matters related to their mental, social, physical as well as emotional health. HEPs also play a major role in preventing diseases and reducing the level of engagement of individuals in risky behaviours. While this is the case, there are barriers to the effective implementation of HEPs, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) where resources are scarce. Available evidence has revealed socioeconomic challenges ranging from literacy issues, discomfort about issues of sexuality, and cultural barriers to financial constraints as key barriers to the implementation of sexual and reproductive health HEPs in LMICs. We will focus on HEPs related to sexual and reproductive health; all age groups will be considered with no restrictions on geographical setting nor model of HEP delivery. This review will map literature on the barriers to the effective implementation of HEPs in LMICs to guide future implementation research. METHODS:Arksey and O'Malley's 2005 scoping methodological framework will act as the guide for this review. We will search the following electronic databases: EBSCOhost (Academic search complete, PsycINFO, Health Sources, CINAHL and MEDLINE with full text), Google Scholar, PubMed, SCOPUS, Science Direct and Web of Science. Grey literature from Mount Kenya University theses and dissertations, governments' as well as international organisations' reports, such as WHO, and reference lists of included studies will be searched for eligible studies. We will limit our search to publications from 1 January 2000 to 30 September 2019. Using thematic content analysis, we will employ NVivo V.12 to extract the relevant outcomes from the included articles. We will conduct a quality appraisal of the included articles using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical approval is needed for the study as it will not include animal nor human participants. The results of the proposed scoping review will be disseminated electronically, in print and through conference presentation as well as at key stakeholder meetings.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is rising in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Self-management, which enables patients to better manage their health, presents a potentially-scalable means of mitigating the growing burden of NCDs in LMICs. Though the effectiveness of self-management interventions in high-income countries is well-documented, the use of these strategies in LMICs has yet to be thoroughly summarized. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this scoping review is to summarize the nature and effectiveness of past interventions that have enabled the self-management of NCDs in LMICs. METHODS:Using the scoping review methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, PubMed was searched for relevant articles published between January 2007 and December 2018. The implemented search strategy comprised three major themes: self-management, NCDs and LMICs. RESULTS:Thirty-six original research articles were selected for inclusion. The selected studies largely focused on the self-management of diabetes (N = 21), hypertension (N = 7) and heart failure (N = 5). Most interventions involved the use of short message service (SMS, N = 17) or phone calls (N = 12), while others incorporated educational sessions (N = 10) or the deployment of medical devices (N = 4). The interventions were generally effective and often led to improvements in physiologic indicators, patient self-care and/or patient quality of life. However, the studies emphasized results in small populations, with little indication of future scaling of the intervention. Furthermore, the results indicate a need for further research into the self-management of cardiovascular diseases, as well as for the co-management of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS:Self-management appears to be an effective means of improving health outcomes in LMICs. Future strategies should include patients and clinicians in all stages of design and development, allowing for a focus on long-term sustainability, scalability and interoperability of the intervention in the target setting.

Project description:ObjectiveAccurate reporting of birth outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is essential. Mobile health (mHealth) tools have been proposed as a replacement for conventional paper-based registers. mHealth could provide timely data for individual facilities and health departments, as well as capture deliveries outside facilities. This scoping review evaluates which mHealth tools have been reported to birth outcomes in the delivering room in LMICs and documents their reported advantages and drawbacks.DesignA scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews and the mHealth evidence reporting and assessment checklist for evaluating mHealth interventions.Data sourcesPubMed, CINAHL and Global Health were searched for records until 3 February 2022 with no earliest date limit.Eligibility criteriaStudies were included where healthcare workers used mHealth tools in LMICs to record birth outcomes. Exclusion criteria included mHealth not being used at the point of delivery, non-peer reviewed literature and studies not written in English.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Common themes among studies were identified.Results640 records were screened, 21 of which met the inclusion criteria, describing 15 different mHealth tools. We identified six themes: (1) digital tools for labour monitoring (8 studies); (2) digital data collection of specific birth outcomes (3 studies); (3) digital technologies used in community settings (6 studies); (4) attitudes of healthcare workers (10 studies); (5) paper versus electronic data collection (3 studies) and (6) infrastructure, interoperability and sustainability (8 studies).ConclusionSeveral mHealth technologies are reported to have the capability to record birth outcomes at delivery, but none were identified that were designed solely for that purpose. Use of digital delivery registers appears feasible and acceptable to healthcare workers, but definitive evaluations are lacking. Further assessment of the sustainability of technologies and their ability to integrate with existing health information systems is needed.

Project description:BackgroundLow-to-middle income countries (LMICs) experience a high burden of disease from both non-communicable and communicable diseases. Addressing these public health concerns requires effective implementation strategies and localization of translation of knowledge into practice.AimTo identify and categorize barriers and strategies to evidence implementation in LMICs from published evidence implementation studies.MethodsA descriptive analysis of key characteristics of evidence implementation projects completed as part of a 6-month, multi-phase, intensive evidence-based clinical fellowship program, conducted in LMICs and published in the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports was undertaken. Barriers were identified and categorized to the Donabedian dimensions of care (structure, process, and outcome), and strategies were mapped to the Cochrane effective practice and organization of care taxonomy.ResultsA total of 60 implementation projects reporting 58 evidence-based clinical audit topics from LMICs were published between 2010 and 2018. The projects included diverse populations and were predominantly conducted in tertiary care settings. A total of 279 barriers to implementation were identified. The most frequently identified groupings of barriers were process-related and associated predominantly with staff knowledge. A total of 565 strategies were used across all projects, with every project incorporating more than one strategy to address barriers to implementation of evidence-based practice; most strategies were categorized as educational meetings for healthcare workers.Linking evidence to actionContext-specific strategies are required for successful evidence implementation in LMICs, and a number of common barriers can be addressed using locally available, low-cost resources. Education for healthcare workers in LMICs is an effective awareness-raising, workplace culture, and practice-transforming strategy for evidence implementation.

Project description:IntroductionNearly every field of medicine has some form of clinical practice guidelines. However, only within the past 5-10 years has the medical community acknowledged the need for well-developed guidelines tailored to the local healthcare needs and the resources available. In most low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), healthcare workers depend on guidelines developed in high-income countries (HICs), yet many interventions validated in a HIC are ineffective when implemented in an LMIC. The variation in infrastructure, medical personnel, technology and environmental conditions exhibited in LMICs relative to HICs necessitates a careful appraisal of the evidence base used in clinical guideline recommendations. This review aims to map the use of resource-stratified guidelines across all fields of medicine. The review seeks to answer three questions for the identified guidelines: (1) what was the method of development, (2) have they been implemented and, if so, (3) have they been validated.MethodsThe search strategy will aim to locate studies from inception to November 2021. An initial limited search of PubMed and Scopus was undertaken to identify articles on the topic. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and Scopus. This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. Data to be extracted from each study will include population characteristics of both developers and intended implementation population, medical specialty, validation status, method of guideline development, whether the study is consensus or evidence-based in addition to a summary of recommendations for practice.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. The plan for dissemination is to publish review findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:BackgroundLow- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experienced increasing rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in the last decade and lower 5-year survival rates compared to high-income countries (HICs) where the implementation of screening and treatment services have advanced. This review scoped and mapped the literature regarding the content, implementation and uptake of CRC screening interventions as well as opportunities and challenges for the implementation of CRC screening interventions in LMICs.MethodsWe systematically followed a five-step scoping review framework to identify and review relevant literature about CRC screening in LMICs, written in the English language before February 2020. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar for studies targeting the general, asymptomatic, at-risk adult population. The TIDieR tool and an implementation checklist were used to extract data from empirical studies; and we extracted data-informed insights from policy reviews and commentaries.ResultsCRC screening interventions (n = 24 studies) were implemented in nine middle-income countries. Population-based screening programmes (n = 11) as well as small-scale screening interventions (n = 13) utilised various recruitment strategies. Interventions that recruited participants face-to-face (alone or in combination with other recruitment strategies) (10/15), opportunistic clinic-based screening interventions (5/6) and educational interventions combined with screening (3/4), seemed to be the strategies that consistently achieved an uptake of > 65% in LMICs. FOBT/FIT and colonoscopy uptake ranged between 14 and 100%. The most commonly reported implementation indicator was 'uptake/reach'. There was an absence of detail regarding implementation indicators and there is a need to improve reporting practice in order to disseminate learning about how to implement programmes.ConclusionOpportunities and challenges for the implementation of CRC screening programmes were related to the reporting of CRC cases and screening, cost-effective screening methods, knowledge about CRC and screening, staff resources and training, infrastructure of the health care system, financial resources, public health campaigns, policy commitment from governments, patient navigation, planning of screening programmes and quality assurance.

Dataset Information

Implementation barriers for mHealth for non-communicable diseases prevention and management in low and middle income countries: a scoping review and field-based views from implementers.

Publications

Implementation barriers for mHealth for non-communicable diseases management in low and middle income countries: a scoping review and field-based views from implementers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets