Use of mHealth tools to register birth outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.
Use of mHealth tools to register birth outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063886
复制
发表时间：
2022-10-12
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
准确报告低收入和中等收入国家的出生结局至关重要。移动保健(MHealth)工具已被提议作为传统纸质登记的替代品。移动健康可以为各个设施和卫生部门提供及时的数据，并捕获设施外的分娩。这项范围审查评估了在LMICs的产房中报告了哪些mHealth工具的分娩结果，并记录了它们所报告的优点和缺点。根据系统回顾和荟萃分析的首选报告项目和乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的范围审查指南以及用于评估mHealth干预措施的mHealth证据报告和评估核对表进行范围审查。PubMed、CINAHL和Global Health被搜索到2022年2月3日之前的记录，没有最早日期限制。研究包括医护人员在LMIC中使用mHealth工具来记录出生结果。排除标准包括在交付时没有使用mHealth，非同行评审的文献和不是用英语撰写的研究。两名独立的评价者筛选研究并提取数据。确定了研究中的共同主题。筛选了640条记录，其中21条符合纳入标准，描述了15种不同的mHealth工具。我们确定了六个主题：(1)用于分娩监测的数字工具(8项研究)；(2)特定分娩结果的数字数据收集(3项研究)；(3)社区环境中使用的数字技术(6项研究)；(4)医护人员的态度(10项研究)；(5)纸质与电子数据收集(3项研究)；(6)基础设施、互操作性和可持续性(8项研究)。据报道，有几项mHealth技术能够记录分娩时的出生结果，但没有一项技术是专门为此目的而设计的。使用数字分娩登记机似乎是可行的，医护人员可以接受，但缺乏明确的评估。需要进一步评估技术的可持续性及其与现有卫生信息系统相结合的能力。
Accurate 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. A 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. PubMed, CINAHL and Global Health were searched for records until 3 February 2022 with no earliest date limit. Studies 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. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Common themes among studies were identified. 640 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). Several 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Usmanova G;Lalchandani K;Srivastava A;Joshi CS;Bhatt DC;Bairagi AK;Jain Y;Afzal M;Dhoundiyal R;Benawri J;Chaudhary T;Mishra A;Wadhwa R;Sridhar P;Bahl N;Gaikwad P;Sood B
通讯作者：
Sood B
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Mumpe-Mwanja, Daniel;Barlow-Mosha, Linda;Musoke, Philippa
通讯作者：
Musoke, Philippa
影响因子：
105.7
作者：
Agarwal, Smisha;LeFevre, Amnesty E.;Labrique, Alain
通讯作者：
Labrique, Alain
DOI：
10.3390/ijerph17228333
发表时间：
2020-11-11
影响因子：
--
作者：
Usmanova G;Gresh A;Cohen MA;Kim YM;Srivastava A;Joshi CS;Bhatt DC;Haws R;Wadhwa R;Sridhar P;Bahl N;Gaikwad P;Anderson J
通讯作者：
Anderson J
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Litwin LE;Maly C;Khamis AR;Hiner C;Zoungrana J;Mohamed K;Drake M;Machaku M;Njozi M;Muhsin SA;Kulindwa YK;Gomez PP
通讯作者：
Gomez PP