Search

Background Mobile health (mHealth) technology is being used predominantly in low- and middle-income countries. Developing countries with low level of investment in health infrastructure can augment existing capacity by adopting low-cost affordable technology. The aim of the review was to summarize the available evidence on mHealth interventions that aimed at increasing the utilization of Maternal and Child Health (MCH) care services. Further, this review investigated the barriers which prevent the use of mHealth among both health care workers as well as beneficiaries. Methodology A scoping review of literature was undertaken using the five-stage framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. The articles published between 1990 and 2021 were retrieved from three databases (PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, and Google Scholar) and grey literature for this review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist was followed to present the findings. Result A total of 573 studies were identified. After removing duplicates, studies not related to mHealth and MCH and publications of systematic reviews and protocols for studies, a total of 28 studies were selected for review. The study design of the research articles which appeared during the search process were mostly observational, cross-sectional, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We have classified the studies into four categories based on the outcomes for which the mHealth intervention was implemented: MCH care services, child immunization, nutrition services, and perceptions of stakeholders toward using technology for improving MCH outcomes. Conclusion This brief review concludes that mHealth interventions can improve access to MCH services. However, further studies based on large sample size and strong research design are recommended.

Aims/Objectives Extensive research considers associations between inpatient glycaemic control and outcomes during hospital admission; this cautions against overly tight glycaemic targets. Little research considers glycaemic control following hospital discharge. This is despite a clear understanding that people with diabetes are at increased risk of negative outcomes, following discharge. We evaluate absolute and relative Hba1c values, and frequency of Hba1c monitoring, on readmission and mortality rates for people discharged from hospital with diabetes. Methods All discharges (n = 46,357) with diabetes from a major tertiary referral centre over 3 years were extracted, including biochemistry data. We conducted an evaluation of association between Hba1c, mortality and readmission, statistical significance and standardised Cohen’s D effect size calculations. Results 399 patients had a Hba1c performed during their admission. 3,138 patients had a Hba1c within 1 year of discharge. Mean average Hba1c for readmissions was 57.82 vs 60.39 for not readmitted (p = 0.009, Cohen’s D 0.28). Mean average number of days to Hba1c testing in readmitted was 97 vs 113 for those not readmitted (p = 0.00006, Cohen’s D 0.39). Further evaluation of mortality outcomes, cohorts of T1DM and T2DM and association of relative change in Hba1c was performed. Conclusions Lower Hba1c values following discharge from hospital are significantly associated with increased risk of readmission, as is a shorter duration until testing. Similar patterns observed for mortality. Findings particularly prominent for T1DM. Further research needed to consider underlying causation and design of appropriate risk stratification models.

Background:\ud Digitally enabled healthcare services combine socio-technical resources to deliver the required outcomes to patients. Unintended operation of these services may result in adverse effects to the patient. Eliminating avoidable harm requires a systematic way of analysing the causal conditions, identifying opportunities for intervention. Operators of such services may be required to justify, and communicate, their safety. For example, the UK Standardisation Committee for Care Information (SCCI) standards 0129 and 0160 require a safety justification for health IT (superseded versions were known as the Information Standards Board (ISB) 0129 & 0160. Initial as well as current standards are maintained by the NHS Digital.\ud \ud Method:\ud A framework was designed, and applied as proof of concept, to an IT-supported clinical emergencies (A&E) service. Evaluation was done qualitatively based on the authors’ experience, identifying potential benefits of the approach.\ud \ud Results:\ud The applied framework encapsulates analysis, and structures the generated information, into a skeleton of an evidence-based case for safety. The framework improved management of the safety activities, assigning ownership to stakeholders (e.g. IT developer), also creating a clear and compelling safety justification.\ud \ud Conclusions:\ud Application of the framework significantly contributed to systematising an exploratory approach for analysing the service, in addition to existing methods such as reporting. Its application made the causal chain to harm more diaphanous. Constructing a safety case contributed to: (a) identifying potential assurance gaps, (b) planning production of information and evidence, and (c) communication of the justification by graphical unambiguous means.