Book Review: mHealth: New Horizons for Health through Mobile Technologies: Based on the Findings of the Second Global Survey on eHealth (Global Observatory for eHealth Series, Volume 3)
01 Sep 2012-Healthcare Informatics Research (Korean Society of Medical Informatics)-Vol. 18, Iss: 3, pp 231-233
TL;DR: mHealth involves the use of and capitalization on a mobile phone’s core utility of voice and short messaging service as well as more complex functionalities and applications, including a general packet radio service, thirdand fourth-generation mobile telecommunications, a global positioning system, and Bluetooth technology.
Abstract: with more intelligent and versatile connectivity and communication capabilities. The unprecedented spread of mobile technologies as well as advancements in their innovative capacity to address health priorities has evolved into a new field of eHealth known as mHealth (mobile health). By the end of 2010, there were nearly 5.3 billion mobile phone subscriptions in the world, with over 85% of the world’s population now within range of a commercial wireless signal [1]. There are 43.5 million Koreans, and 90% of the population had a mobile phone as of the year 2007 [2]. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Global Observatory for eHealth defined mHealth as medical and public health practice supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones, patient monitoring devices, personal digital assistants, and other wireless devices. mHealth involves the use of and capitalization on a mobile phone’s core utility of voice and short messaging service as well as more complex functionalities and applications, including a general packet radio service, thirdand fourth-generation mobile telecommunications (i.e., 3G and 4G systems), a global positioning system, and Bluetooth technology. The WHO Global Observatory for eHealth also surveyed the status of mHealth in 114 member states in 2009. The survey documented for analysis four aspects of mHealth: the adoption of initiatives, the types of initiatives, the status of evaluations, and barriers to implementation. Fourteen categories of mHealth services were surveyed: health call centres, emergency toll-free telephone services, managing emermHealth: New Horizons for Health through Mobile Technologies: Based on the Findings of the Second Global Survey on eHealth (Global Observatory for eHealth Series, Volume 3)
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: There is potential for mHealth tools to better facilitate adherence to chronic disease management, but the evidence supporting its current effectiveness is mixed.
Abstract: Background: Adherence to chronic disease management is critical to achieving improved health outcomes, quality of life, and cost-effective health care. As the burden of chronic diseases continues to grow globally, so does the impact of non-adherence. Mobile technologies are increasingly being used in health care and public health practice (mHealth) for patient communication, monitoring, and education, and to facilitate adherence to chronic diseases management. Objective: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the effectiveness of mHealth in supporting the adherence of patients to chronic diseases management (“mAdherence”), and the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of mAdherence tools and platforms in chronic disease management among patients and health care providers. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and EBSCO databases for studies that assessed the role of mAdherence in chronic disease management of diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and chronic lung diseases from 1980 through May 2014. Outcomes of interest included effect of mHealth on patient adherence to chronic diseases management, disease-specific clinical outcomes after intervention, and the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of mAdherence tools and platforms in chronic disease management among target end-users. Results: In all, 107 articles met all inclusion criteria. Short message service was the most commonly used mAdherence tool in 40.2% (43/107) of studies. Usability, feasibility, and acceptability or patient preferences for mAdherence interventions were assessed in 57.9% (62/107) of studies and found to be generally high. A total of 27 studies employed randomized controlled trial (RCT) methods to assess impact on adherence behaviors, and significant improvements were observed in 15 of those studies (56%). Of the 41 RCTs that measured effects on disease-specific clinical outcomes, significant improvements between groups were reported in 16 studies (39%). Conclusions: There is potential for mHealth tools to better facilitate adherence to chronic disease management, but the evidence supporting its current effectiveness is mixed. Further research should focus on understanding and improving how mHealth tools can overcome specific barriers to adherence. [J Med Internet Res 2015;17(2):e52]
799 citations
TL;DR: A systematic literature search on four electronic databases provided a set of key elements making it possible to understand the challenges and opportunities for m-health utilization by healthcare providers.
376 citations
TL;DR: A study of the existing laws regulating these aspects in the European Union and the United States, a review of the academic literature related to this topic, and a proposal of some recommendations for designers in order to create mobile health applications that satisfy the current security and privacy legislation are presented.
Abstract: In a world where the industry of mobile applications is continuously expanding and new health care apps and devices are created every day, it is important to take special care of the collection and treatment of users' personal health information. However, the appropriate methods to do this are not usually taken into account by apps designers and insecure applications are released. This paper presents a study of security and privacy in mHealth, focusing on three parts: a study of the existing laws regulating these aspects in the European Union and the United States, a review of the academic literature related to this topic, and a proposal of some recommendations for designers in order to create mobile health applications that satisfy the current security and privacy legislation. This paper will complement other standards and certifications about security and privacy and will suppose a quick guide for apps designers, developers and researchers.
260 citations
Cites background from "Book Review: mHealth: New Horizons ..."
...All these apps are included in what is known as mHealth or mobile health, defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “medical and public health practice supported by mobile devices, such as mobile phones, patient monitoring devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and other wireless devices” [23]....
[...]
13 Jan 2020
TL;DR: Clinical guidance on how mobile apps should be utilized to add value to patient care is discussed and efforts to develop guidelines for the development of safe and effective mHealth apps in the US and elsewhere are discussed.
Abstract: Despite growing interest from both patients and healthcare providers, there is little clinical guidance on how mobile apps should be utilized to add value to patient care. We categorize apps according to their functionality (e.g. preventative behavior change, digital self-management of a specific condition, diagnostic) and discuss evidence for effectiveness from published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and the relevance to patient care. We discuss the limitations of the current literature describing clinical outcomes from mHealth apps, what FDA clearance means now (510(k)/de novo FDA clearance) and in the future. We discuss data security and privacy as a major concern for patients when using mHealth apps. Patients are often not involved in the development of mobile health guidelines, and professionals' views regarding high-quality health apps may not reflect patients' views. We discuss efforts to develop guidelines for the development of safe and effective mHealth apps in the US and elsewhere and the role of independent app reviews sites in identifying mHealth apps for patient care. There are only a small number of clinical scenarios where published evidence suggests that mHealth apps may improve patient outcomes.
172 citations
TL;DR: The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of how mHealth can be used to improve adherence to medication.
Abstract: Summary
Aims
Adherence to medication is a major problem that affects 50–60% of chronically ill patients. As mobile phone use spreads rapidly, a new model of remote health delivery via mobile phone – mHealth – is increasingly used. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of how mHealth can be used to improve adherence to medication.
Methods
A systematic literature review was conducted using four databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus and PsycARTICLES). Eligible articles available on March 2014 had to be written in English or Spanish and have a comparative design. Articles were reviewed by two authors independently. A Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the studies based on their internal validity.
Results
Of the 1504 articles found, 20 fulfilled the inclusion criteria [13 randomised clinical trials (RCT), one quasi-RCT, one non-randomised parallel group study and five studies with a pre-post design]. Nearly all the trials were conducted in high-income countries (80.0%). Articles were categorised depending on the target population into three different groups: (i) HIV-infected patients, n = 5; (ii) patients with other chronic diseases (asthma, coronary heart disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, infectious diseases, transplant recipients and psoriasis), n = 11; and (iii) healthy individuals, n = 4. Adherence improved in four of the studies on HIV-infected patients, in eight of the studies on patients with other chronic diseases, and in 1 study performed in healthy individuals. All studies reported sending SMS as medication reminders, healthy lifestyle reminders, or both. Only one trial (HIV-infected patients) had a low risk of bias.
Conclusions
Our results showed mixed evidence regarding the benefits of interventions because of the variety of the study designs and the results found. Nevertheless, the interventions do seem to have been beneficial, as 65% of the studies had positive outcomes. Therefore, more high-quality studies should be conducted.
160 citations