52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Adoption and Usage of mHealth Technology on Quality and Experience of Care Provided by Frontline Workers: Observations From Rural India

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          mHealth apps are deployed with the aim of improving access, quality, and experience of health care. It is possible that any mHealth intervention can yield differential impacts for different types of users. Mediating and determining factors, including personal and socioeconomic factors, affect technology adoption, the way health workers leverage and use the technology, and subsequently the quality and experience of care they provide.

          Objective

          To develop a framework to assess whether mHealth platforms affect the quality and experience of care provided by frontline workers, and whether these effects on quality and experience are different depending on the level of technology adoption and individual characteristics of the health worker. Literacy, education, age, and previous mobile experience are identified as individual factors that affect technology adoption and use, as well as factors that affect the quality and experience of care directly and via the technology.

          Methods

          Formative research was conducted with 15 community health workers (CHWs) using CommCare, an mHealth app for maternal and newborn care, in Bihar, India. CHWs were first classified on the level of CommCare adoption using data from CommCareHQ and were then shadowed on home visits to evaluate their levels of technology proficiency, and the quality and experience of care provided. Regression techniques were employed to test the relationships. Out of all the CHWs, 2 of them refused to participate in the home visits, however, we did have information on their levels of technology adoption and background characteristics, which were included in the analysis as relevant.

          Results

          Level of technology adoption was important for both quality and experience of care. The quality score for high users of CommCare was higher by 33.4% ( P=.04), on average, compared to low users of CommCare. Those who scored higher on CommCare proficiency also provided significantly higher quality and experience of care, where an additional point in CommCare proficiency score increased the quality score by around half a point (0.541, P=.07), and experience score by around a third of a point (0.308, P=.03). Age affected CommCare user type negatively, with an increase in age increasing the likelihood of belonging to a lower category of CommCare adoption (-0.105, P=.08). Other individual characteristics did not affect adoption or the predicted values estimating the relationship between adoption and quality and experience of care, although illiteracy was able to affect the relationship negatively.

          Conclusions

          mHealth technology adoption by frontline workers can positively impact the quality and experience of care they provide. Individual characteristics, especially literacy and age, can be important elements affecting technology adoption and the way users leverage the technology for their work. Our formative study provides informed hypotheses and methods for further research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care.

          Experts consider health information technology key to improving efficiency and quality of health care. To systematically review evidence on the effect of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of health care. The authors systematically searched the English-language literature indexed in MEDLINE (1995 to January 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Periodical Abstracts Database. We also added studies identified by experts up to April 2005. Descriptive and comparative studies and systematic reviews of health information technology. Two reviewers independently extracted information on system capabilities, design, effects on quality, system acquisition, implementation context, and costs. 257 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies addressed decision support systems or electronic health records. Approximately 25% of the studies were from 4 academic institutions that implemented internally developed systems; only 9 studies evaluated multifunctional, commercially developed systems. Three major benefits on quality were demonstrated: increased adherence to guideline-based care, enhanced surveillance and monitoring, and decreased medication errors. The primary domain of improvement was preventive health. The major efficiency benefit shown was decreased utilization of care. Data on another efficiency measure, time utilization, were mixed. Empirical cost data were limited. Available quantitative research was limited and was done by a small number of institutions. Systems were heterogeneous and sometimes incompletely described. Available financial and contextual data were limited. Four benchmark institutions have demonstrated the efficacy of health information technologies in improving quality and efficiency. Whether and how other institutions can achieve similar benefits, and at what costs, are unclear.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Defining equity in health.

            To propose a definition of health equity to guide operationalisation and measurement, and to discuss the practical importance of clarity in defining this concept. Conceptual discussion. Setting, Patients/Participants, and Main results: not applicable. For the purposes of measurement and operationalisation, equity in health is the absence of systematic disparities in health (or in the major social determinants of health) between groups with different levels of underlying social advantage/disadvantage-that is, wealth, power, or prestige. Inequities in health systematically put groups of people who are already socially disadvantaged (for example, by virtue of being poor, female, and/or members of a disenfranchised racial, ethnic, or religious group) at further disadvantage with respect to their health; health is essential to wellbeing and to overcoming other effects of social disadvantage. Equity is an ethical principle; it also is consonant with and closely related to human rights principles. The proposed definition of equity supports operationalisation of the right to the highest attainable standard of health as indicated by the health status of the most socially advantaged group. Assessing health equity requires comparing health and its social determinants between more and less advantaged social groups. These comparisons are essential to assess whether national and international policies are leading toward or away from greater social justice in health.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
                JMU
                JMIR mHealth and uHealth
                JMIR Publications Inc. (Toronto, Canada )
                2291-5222
                Apr-Jun 2015
                28 May 2015
                : 3
                : 2
                : e61
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Dimagi Software Innovations NairobiKenya
                [2] 2CARE India PatnaIndia
                [3] 3Dimagi Software Innovations Cambridge, MAUnited States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Sangya Kaphle sangyakaphle@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0598-2272
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1225-3537
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8248-4402
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5918-2684
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0027-3247
                Article
                v3i2e61
                10.2196/mhealth.4047
                4464193
                26023001
                cd8eb6c5-5671-45d7-a58f-1499f9e3275d
                ©Sangya Kaphle, Sharad Chaturvedi, Indrajit Chaudhuri, Ram Krishnan, Neal Lesh. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 28.05.2015.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mhealth and uhealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 15 November 2014
                : 21 February 2015
                : 12 March 2015
                : 14 March 2015
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                mhealth,technology adoption,community health workers,commcare

                Comments

                Comment on this article