↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of mHealth interventions against non-communicable diseases in developing countries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
375 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of mHealth interventions against non-communicable diseases in developing countries
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3226-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor Stephani, Daniel Opoku, Wilm Quentin

Abstract

The reasons of deaths in developing countries are shifting from communicable diseases towards non-communicable diseases (NCDs). At the same time the number of health care interventions using mobile phones (mHealth interventions) is growing rapidly. We review studies assessing the health-related impacts of mHealth on NCDs in low- and middle-income countries (LAMICs). A systematic literature search of three major databases was performed in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mHealth interventions. Identified studies were reviewed concerning key characteristics of the trial and the intervention; and the relationship between intervention characteristics and outcomes was qualitatively assessed. The search algorithms retrieved 994 titles. 8 RCTs were included in the review, including a total of 4375 participants. Trials took place mostly in urban areas, tested different interventions (ranging from health promotion over appointment reminders and medication adjustments to clinical decision support systems), and included patients with different diseases (diabetes, asthma, hypertension). Except for one study all showed rather positive effects of mHealth interventions on reported outcome measures. Furthermore, our results suggest that particular types of mHealth interventions that were found to have positive effects on patients with communicable diseases and for improving maternal care are likely to be effective also for NCDs. Despite rather positive results of included RCTs, a firm conclusion about the effectiveness of mHealth interventions against NCDs is not yet possible because of the limited number of studies, the heterogeneity of evaluated mHealth interventions and the wide variety of reported outcome measures. More research is needed to better understand the specific effects of different types of mHealth interventions on different types of patients with NCDs in LaMICs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 375 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 371 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 15%
Researcher 45 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 11%
Student > Bachelor 39 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 5%
Other 62 17%
Unknown 111 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 10%
Computer Science 25 7%
Psychology 20 5%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Other 61 16%
Unknown 129 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,860,178
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,542
of 17,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,893
of 373,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#86
of 355 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 355 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.