METHODS: Eight scientific databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the literature in title and abstract stages, followed by full-text appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis of eligible studies. Studies were extracted to capture details of the mhealth tools used, the service issues addressed, the study design, and the outcomes evaluated. We then mapped the included studies using the 20 sub-strategies of the WHO Framework on Integrated People-Centred Health Services (IPCHS); as well as with the RE-AIM (Reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance) framework, to understand how studies implemented and evaluated interventions.
RESULTS: We identified 39 studies, predominantly from Australia (n = 16), China (n = 7), Malaysia (n = 4) and New Zealand (n = 4), and little from low income countries. The mHealth modalities included text messaging, voice and video communication, mobile applications and devices (point-of-care, GPS, and Bluetooth). Health issues addressed included: medication adherence, smoking cessation, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, asthma, diabetes, and lifestyle activities respectively. Almost all were community-based and focused on service issues; only half were disease-specific. mHealth facilitated integrated IPCHS by: enabling citizens and communities to bypass gatekeepers and directly access services; increasing affordability and accessibility of services; strengthening governance over the access, use, safety and quality of clinical care; enabling scheduling and navigation of services; transitioning patients and caregivers between care sectors; and enabling the evaluation of safety and quality outcomes for systemic improvement. Evaluations of mHealth interventions did not always report the underlying theories. They predominantly reported cognitive/behavioural changes rather than patient outcomes. The utility of mHealth to support and improve IPCHS was evident. However, IPCHS strategy 2 (participatory governance and accountability) was addressed least frequently. Implementation was evaluated in regard to reach (n = 30), effectiveness (n = 24); adoption (n = 5), implementation (n = 9), and maintenance (n = 1).
CONCLUSIONS: mHealth can transition disease-centred services towards people-centred services. Critical appraisal of studies highlighted methodological issues, raising doubts about validity. The limited evidence for large-scale implementation and international variation in reporting of mHealth practice, modalities used, and health domains addressed requires capacity building. Information-enhanced implementation and evaluation of IPCHS, particularly for participatory governance and accountability, is also important.
OBJECTIVE: To measure factors associated with mHealth adoption among primary care physicians (PCPs) in Malaysia.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted among PCPs. The usage of mHealth apps by the PCPs has divided into the use of mHealth apps to support PCPs' clinical work and recommendation of mHealth apps for patient's use. Factors associated with mHealth adoption were analysed using multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: Among 217 PCPs in the study, 77.0% used mHealth apps frequently for medical references, 78.3% medical calculation and 30.9% interacting with electronic health records (EHRs). Only 22.1% of PCPs frequently recommended mHealth apps to patients for tracking health information, 22.1% patient education and 14.3% use as a medical device. Performance expectancy and facilitating conditions were associated with mHealth use for medical references. Family medicine trainees, working in a government practice and performance expectancy were the facilitators for the use of mHealth apps for medical calculation. Internet connectivity, performance expectancy and use by colleagues were associated with the use of mHealth with EHR. Performance expectancy was associated with mHealth apps' recommendation to patients to track health information and provide patient education.
CONCLUSIONS: PCPs often used mHealth apps to support their clinical work but seldom recommended mHealth apps to their patients. Training for PCPs is needed on the appraisal and knowledge of the mHealth apps for patient use.
METHODS: Currently available indicators from both household and facility surveys were collated through publicly available global databases and respective survey instruments. We then developed a suite of potential indicators and associated data points for the 45 WHO Essential Interventions spanning preconception to newborn care. Four types of performance indicators were identified (where applicable): process (i.e. coverage) and outcome (i.e. impact) indicators for both screening and treatment/prevention. Indicators were evaluated by an international expert panel against the eRegistries indicator evaluation criteria and further refined based on feedback by the eRegistries technical team.
RESULTS: Of the 45 WHO Essential Interventions, only 16 were addressed in any of the household survey data available. A set of 216 potential indicators was developed. These indicators were generally evaluated favourably by the panel, but difficulties in data ascertainment, including for outcome measures of cause-specific morbidity and mortality, were frequently reported as barriers to the feasibility of indicators. Indicators were refined based on feedback, culminating in the final list of 193 total unique indicators: 93 for preconception and antenatal care; 53 for childbirth and postpartum care; and 47 for newborn and small and ill baby care.
CONCLUSIONS: Large gaps exist in the availability of information currently collected to support the implementation of the WHO Essential Interventions. The development of this suite of indicators can be used to support the implementation of eRegistries and other data platforms, to ensure that data are utilised to support evidence-based practice, facilitate measurement and accountability, and improve maternal and child health outcomes.