METHODS: A total of 135 students from three undergraduate year levels of the MBBS degree at UAMC, Dhaka, Bangladesh, undertook study tours (community-based teaching, CBT) as a part of a community medicine course and visited a medical college, two rural health centres and a meteorology centre in the Cox's Bazar district, 400 km from Dhaka city. A questionnaire was used to assess the perceptions of students regarding the administration, organisation and learning experiences of the study tours. Students were required to write reports, present their findings and answer questions in their examinations related to the study tours and CBT.
RESULTS: The majority of the students agreed or strongly agreed that the tour was a worthwhile (93%) and enjoyable (95%) learning experience that helped them to understand rural health issues (91%). More than half of the students reported that the study tours increased their awareness about common rural health problems (54%) and provided a wider exposure to medicine (61%). Only 41% of students reported that the study tour increased their interest in undertake training in a rural area. A substantial number of students also expressed their concerns about the planning, length, resources, finance and organisation of the study tours.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the study tours had a positive effect, enhancing students' awareness and understanding of common rural health problems. As study tours failed to increase the motivation of the students (approximately 60%) to work in rural areas, CBT in the medical curriculum should be reviewed and implemented using effective and evidence-based models to promote interest among medical students to work in rural and underserved or unserved areas.
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.