Importance Mobile health interventions are increasingly popular in pediatrics; however, it is unclear how effective these interventions are in changing health outcomes. Objective To determine the effectiveness of mobile health interventions for improving health outcomes in youth 18 years or younger. Data Sources Studies published through November 30, 2016, were collected through PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, and PsychINFO. Backward and forward literature searches were conducted on articles meeting study inclusion criteria. Search terms included telemedicine , eHealth , mobile health , mHealth , app , and mobile application . Study Selection Search results were limited to infants, children, adolescents, or young adults when possible. Studies were included if quantitative methods were used to evaluate an application of mobile intervention technology in a primary or secondary capacity to promote or modify health behavior in youth 18 years or younger. Studies were excluded if the article was an unpublished dissertation or thesis, the mean age of participants was older than 18 years, the study did not assess a health behavior and disease outcome, or the article did not include sufficient statistics. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied by 2 independent coders with 20% overlap. Of 9773 unique articles, 36 articles (containing 37 unique studies with a total of 29 822 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis Of 9773 unique articles, 36 articles (containing 37 unique studies) with a total of 29 822 participants met the inclusion criteria. Effect sizes were calculated from statistical tests that could be converted to standardized mean differences. All aggregate effect sizes and moderator variables were tested using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures Change in health behavior or disease control. Results A total of 29 822 participants were included in the studies. In studies that reported sex, the total number of females was 11 226 (53.2%). Of those reporting age, the average was 11.35 years. The random effects aggregate effect size of mobile health interventions was significant (n = 37; Cohen d  = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.14-0.29). The random effects model indicated that providing mobile health intervention to a caregiver increased the strength of the intervention effect. Studies that involved caregivers in the intervention produced effect sizes (n = 16; Cohen d  = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.18-0.39) larger than those that did not include caregivers (n = 21; Cohen d  = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.25). Other coded variables did not moderate study effect size. Conclusions and Relevance Mobile health interventions appear to be a viable health behavior change intervention modality for youth. Given the ubiquity of mobile phones, mobile health interventions offer promise in improving public health.

Mobile Health Interventions for Improving Health Outcomes in Youth: A Meta-analysis.

Background
Childhood vaccination is an effective way to prevent serious childhood illnesses, but many children do not receive all the recommended vaccines. There are various reasons for this; some parents lack access because of poor quality health services, long distances or lack of money. Other parents may not trust vaccines or the healthcare workers who provide them, or they may not see the need for vaccination due to a lack of information or misinformation about how vaccinations work and the diseases they can prevent.

Communication with parents about childhood vaccinations is one way of addressing these issues. Communication can take place at healthcare facilities, at home or in the community. Communication can be two-way, for example face-to-face discussions between parents and healthcare providers, or one-way, for instance via text messages, posters or radio programmes. Some types of communication enable parents to actively discuss vaccines and their benefits and harms, as well as diseases they can prevent. Other communication types simply give information about vaccination issues or when and where vaccines are available. People involved in vaccine programmes need to understand how parents experience different types of communication about vaccination and how this influences their decision to vaccinate.

Objectives
The specific objectives of the review were to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring: parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences regarding communication about childhood vaccinations and the manner in which it is communicated; and the influence that vaccination communication has on parents' and informal caregivers' decisions regarding childhood vaccination.

Search methods
We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), MEDLINE In-process and Other Non-Index Citations (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EbscoHOST), and Anthropology Plus (EbscoHost) databases for eligible studies from inception to 30 August 2016. We developed search strategies for each database, using guidelines developed by the Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group for searching for qualitative evidence as well as modified versions of the search developed for three related reviews of effectiveness. There were no date or geographic restrictions for the search.

Selection criteria
We included studies that utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on the views and experiences of parents and informal caregivers regarding information about vaccination for children aged up to six years; and were from any setting globally where information about childhood vaccinations was communicated or distributed.

Data collection and analysis
We used maximum variation purposive sampling for data synthesis, using a three-step sampling frame. We conducted a thematic analysis using a constant comparison strategy for data extraction and synthesis. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. High confidence suggests that it is highly likely that the review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest, while very low confidence indicates that it is not clear whether the review finding is a reasonable representation of it. Using a matrix model, we then integrated our findings with those from other Cochrane reviews that assessed the effects of different communication strategies on parents' knowledge, attitudes and behaviour about childhood vaccination.

Main results
We included 38 studies, mostly from high-income countries, many of which explored mothers' perceptions of vaccine communication. Some focused on the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.

In general, parents wanted more information than they were getting (high confidence in the evidence). Lack of information led to worry and regret about vaccination decisions among some parents (moderate confidence).

Parents wanted balanced information about vaccination benefits and harms (high confidence), presented clearly and simply (moderate confidence) and tailored to their situation (low confidence in the evidence). Parents wanted vaccination information to be available at a wider variety of locations, including outside health services (low confidence) and in good time before each vaccination appointment (moderate confidence).

Parents viewed health workers as an important source of information and had specific expectations of their interactions with them (high confidence). Poor communication and negative relationships with health workers sometimes impacted on vaccination decisions (moderate confidence).

Parents generally found it difficult to know which vaccination information source to trust and challenging to find information they felt was unbiased and balanced (high confidence).

The amount of information parents wanted and the sources they felt could be trusted appeared to be linked to acceptance of vaccination, with parents who were more hesitant wanting more information (low to moderate confidence).

Our synthesis and comparison of the qualitative evidence shows that most of the trial interventions addressed at least one or two key aspects of communication, including the provision of information prior to the vaccination appointment and tailoring information to parents' needs. None of the interventions appeared to respond to negative media stories or address parental perceptions of health worker motives.

Authors' conclusions
We have high or moderate confidence in the evidence contributing to several review findings. Further research, especially in rural and low- to middle-income country settings, could strengthen evidence for the findings where we had low or very low confidence. Planners should consider the timing for making vaccination information available to parents, the settings where information is available, the provision of impartial and clear information tailored to parental needs, and parents' perceptions of health workers and the information provided.

/pdf/parents-and-informal-caregivers-views-and-experiences-of-471avnx9n3.pdf

Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence

Background
Immunisation is a powerful public health strategy for improving child survival, not only by directly combating key diseases that kill children but also by providing a platform for other health services. However, each year millions of children worldwide, mostly from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), do not receive the full series of vaccines on their national routine immunisation schedule. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2011 and focuses on interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.

Objectives
To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies to boost and sustain high childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2016, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.cochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 12 May 2016); MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and MEDLINE 1946 to Present, OvidSP (searched 12 May 2016); CINAHL 1981 to present, EbscoHost (searched 12 May 2016); Embase 1980 to 2014 Week 34, OvidSP (searched 2 September 2014); LILACS, VHL (searched 2 September 2014); Sociological Abstracts 1952 - current, ProQuest (searched 2 September 2014). We did a citation search for all included studies in Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, 1975 to present; Emerging Sources Citation Index 2015 to present, ISI Web of Science (searched 2 July 2016). We also searched the two Trials Registries: ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 5 July 2016)

Selection criteria
Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series conducted in LMICs involving children aged from birth to four years, caregivers, and healthcare providers.

Data collection and analysis
We independently screened the search output, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible articles, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data in duplicate; resolving discrepancies by consensus. We then conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

Main results
Fourteen studies (10 cluster RCTs and four individual RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. These were conducted in Georgia (one study), Ghana (one study), Honduras (one study), India (two studies), Mali (one study), Mexico (one study), Nicaragua (one study), Nepal (one study), Pakistan (four studies), and Zimbabwe (one study). One study had an unclear risk of bias, and 13 had high risk of bias. The interventions evaluated in the studies included community-based health education (three studies), facility-based health education (three studies), household incentives (three studies), regular immunisation outreach sessions (one study), home visits (one study), supportive supervision (one study), information campaigns (one study), and integration of immunisation services with intermittent preventive treatment of malaria (one study).

We found moderate-certainty evidence that health education at village meetings or at home probably improves coverage with three doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines (DTP3: risk ratio (RR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 2.59). We also found low-certainty evidence that facility-based health education plus redesigned vaccination reminder cards may improve DTP3 coverage (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87). Household monetary incentives may have little or no effect on full immunisation coverage (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23, low-certainty evidence). Regular immunisation outreach may improve full immunisation coverage (RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.69 to 5.67, low-certainty evidence) which may substantially improve if combined with household incentives (RR 6.66, 95% CI 3.93 to 11.28, low-certainty evidence). Home visits to identify non-vaccinated children and refer them to health clinics may improve uptake of three doses of oral polio vaccine (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39, low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that integration of immunisation with other services may improve DTP3 coverage (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.59).

Authors' conclusions
Providing parents and other community members with information on immunisation, health education at facilities in combination with redesigned immunisation reminder cards, regular immunisation outreach with and without household incentives, home visits, and integration of immunisation with other services may improve childhood immunisation coverage in LMIC. Most of the evidence was of low certainty, which implies a high likelihood that the true effect of the interventions will be substantially different. There is thus a need for further well-conducted RCTs to assess the effects of interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.

Interventions for improving coverage of childhood immunisation in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Background: The use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies to improve population-level health outcomes around the world has surged in the last decade. Research supports the use of mHealth apps to improve health outcomes such as maternal and infant mortality, treatment adherence, immunization rates, and prevention of communicable diseases. However, developing countries face significant barriers to successfully implement, sustain, and expand mHealth initiatives to improve the health of vulnerable populations. Objective: We aimed to identify and synthesize barriers to the use of mHealth technologies such as text messaging (short message service [SMS]), calls, and apps to change and, where possible, improve the health behaviors and health outcomes of populations in developing countries. Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Deriving search criteria from the review’s primary objective, we searched PubMed and CINAHL using an exhaustive terms search (eg, mHealth, text messaging, and developing countries, with their respective Medical Subject Headings) limited by publication date, English language, and full text. At least two authors thoroughly reviewed each article’s abstract to verify the articles were germane to our objective. We then applied filters and conducted consensus meetings to confirm that the articles met the study criteria. Results: Review of 2224 studies resulted in a final group of 30 articles for analysis. mHealth initiatives were used extensively worldwide for applications such as maternal health, prenatal care, infant care, HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment adherence, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and health education. Studies were conducted in several developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. From each article, we recorded the specific health outcome that was improved, mHealth technology used, and barriers to the successful implementation of the intervention in a developing country. The most prominent health outcomes improved with mHealth were infectious diseases and maternal health, accounting for a combined 20/30 (67%) of the total studies in the analysis. The most frequent mHealth technology used was SMS, accounting for 18/30 (60%) of the studies. We identified 73 individual barriers and grouped them into 14 main categories. The top 3 barrier categories were infrastructure, lack of equipment, and technology gap, which together accounted for 28 individual barriers. Conclusions: This systematic review shed light on the most prominent health outcomes that can be improved using mHealth technology interventions in developing countries. The barriers identified will provide leaders of future intervention projects a solid foundation for their design, thus increasing the chances for long-term success. We suggest that, to overcome the top 3 barriers, project leaders who wish to implement mHealth interventions must establish partnerships with local governments and nongovernmental organizations to secure funding, leadership, and the required infrastructure.

/pdf/barriers-to-the-use-of-mobile-health-in-improving-health-3qu31o0vrb.pdf

Barriers to the Use of Mobile Health in Improving Health Outcomes in Developing Countries: Systematic Review

In 2014, over half (54%) of the world’s population lived in urban areas and this proportion will increase to 66% by 2050. This urbanizing trend has been accompanied by an increasing number of people living in urban poor communities and slums. Lower immunization coverage is found in poorer urban dwellers in many contexts. This study aims to identify factors associated with immunization coverage in poor urban areas and slums, and to identify interventions to improve coverage. We conducted a systematic review, searching Medline, Embase, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Database with broad search terms for studies published between 2000 and 2016. Of 4872 unique articles, 327 abstracts were screened, leading to 63 included studies: 44 considering factors and 20 evaluating interventions (one in both categories) in 16 low or middle-income countries. A wide range of socio-economic characteristics were associated with coverage in different contexts. Recent rural-urban migration had a universally negative effect. Parents commonly reported lack of awareness of immunization importance and difficulty accessing services as reasons for under-immunization of their children. Physical distance to clinics and aspects of service quality also impacted uptake. We found evidence of effectiveness for interventions involving multiple components, especially if they have been designed with community involvement. Outreach programmes were effective where physical distance was identified as a barrier. Some evidence was found for the effective use of SMS (text) messaging services, community-based education programmes and financial incentives, which warrant further evaluation. No interventions were identified that provided services to migrants from rural areas. Different factors affect immunization coverage in different urban poor and slum contexts. Immunization services should be designed in collaboration with slum-dwelling communities, considering the local context. Interventions should be designed and tested to increase immunization in migrants from rural areas.

/pdf/immunization-urbanization-and-slums-a-systematic-review-of-iv93ajtmyp.pdf

Immunization, urbanization and slums – a systematic review of factors and interventions

Use of mobile phones for improving vaccination coverage among children living in rural hard-to-reach areas and urban streets of Bangladesh.

The Cholera-Hospital-Based-Intervention-for-7-Days (CHoBI7) is a handwashing with soap and water treatment intervention program delivered by a health promoter bedside in a health facility and through home visits to diarrhea patients and their household members during the 7 days after admission to a health facility. In a randomized controlled trial among cholera patient households in Bangladesh, the 7-day CHoBI7 program resulted in a significant reduction in cholera among household members of cholera patients and sustained improvements in drinking water quality and handwashing with soap practices 12 months post-intervention. In an effort to take this intervention to scale across Bangladesh in partnership with the Bangladesh Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, this study evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of mobile health (mHealth) programs as a low-cost, scalable approach for CHoBI7 program delivery. Formative research for the development of the CHoBI7 mHealth intervention included 40 semi-structured interviews, 4 mHealth workshops, 2 group discussions, and a pilot study of 52 households to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the developed mHealth program. Thematic analysis of the interviews and group discussions was conducted by two individuals separately based on emergent themes, and then themes were compared and discussed. A theory- and evidence-based approach using qualitative research methods was implemented to design the CHoBI7 mHealth program. Semi-structured interviews with government stakeholders identified perceptions and preferences for scaling the CHoBI7 mHealth program. Group discussions and semi-structured interviews with diarrhea patients and their family members identified beneficiary perceptions of mHealth and preferences for CHoBI7 mHealth program delivery. mHealth workshops were conducted as an interactive approach to draft and refine mobile message content based on stakeholder preferences. The pilot findings indicate that the CHoBI7 mHealth program has high user acceptability and is feasible to deliver to diarrhea patients that present at health facilities for treatment in Bangladesh. Both text and voice messages were recommended for program delivery. Dr. Chobi, the sender of mHealth messages, was viewed as a credible source of information that could be shared with others. This study presents a theory- and evidence-based approach that can be implemented for the development of future water, sanitation, and hygiene mHealth programs in low-resource settings.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12889-019-7144-z.pdf

Formative research for the design of a scalable water, sanitation, and hygiene mobile health program: CHoBI7 mobile health program

It was highlighted that the original article [1] contained an error in the title. Additionally, Table 2 contained a typesetting mistake. This Correction article shows the incorrect and correct article title and Table 2. The original article has been updated.

/pdf/correction-to-formative-research-for-the-design-of-a-8fq8rfhorl.pdf

Kelsey Zeller

Papers

Use of mobile phones for improving vaccination coverage among children living in rural hard-to-reach areas and urban streets of Bangladesh.

Formative research for the design of a scalable water, sanitation, and hygiene mobile health program: CHoBI7 mobile health program

Correction to: Formative research for the design of a scalable water, sanitation, and hygiene mobile health program: CHoBI7 mobile health program