SEARCHSYSTEMATIC_REVIEWpublic health, epidemiology

systematic_review·public health, epidemiology, infectious disease, systematic review, clinical trial·PMC10558072

Healthcare provider-targeted mobile applications to diagnose, screen, or monitor communicable diseases of public health importance in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

PLOS Digital Health · 9 authors, 9 centres

AI SUMMARY

FIDELITY 100%

This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.

AGENT 01 · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

TRACE TO SOURCE

“

TL;DR

This systematic review identified and analyzed 33 studies on mobile applications for healthcare professionals to screen, diagnose, or monitor communicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries. The review found a small number of innovative technologies, mostly focusing on diagnosis, with limited rigorous evaluation in the target populations.

Full summary

346 CHARS

Of 13,262 studies identified, 33 met inclusion criteria. All technologies involved diagnosis or screening steps, but none addressed monitoring. The authors conclude there is a small number of innovative mHealth tools for this purpose, and note the need for rigorous randomized trials, larger sample sizes, and technologies for disease monitoring.

STUDY TYPE

systematic_review

SPECIALTY

public health

SUMMARISED BY

AI pipeline

FIDELITY CHECK

100% · A

ORIGINAL PAPER

PMC10558072

Healthcare provider-targeted mobile applications to diagnose, screen, or monitor communicable diseases of public health importance in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

PLOS Digital Health

READ THE FULL PAPER

ABSTRACT

Abstract Communicable diseases remain a leading cause of death and disability in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). mHealth technologies carry considerable promise for managing these disorders within resource-poor settings, but many existing applications exclusively represent digital versions of existing guidelines or clinical calculators, communication facilitators, or patient self-management tools. We thus systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central for studies published between January 2007 and October 2019 involving technologies that were mobile phone- or tablet-based; able to screen for, diagnose, or monitor a communicable disease of importance in LMICs; and targeted health professionals as primary users. We excluded technologies that digitized existing paper-based tools or facilitated communication (i.e., knowledge-based algorithms). Extracted data included disease category, pathogen type, diagnostic method, intervention purpose, study/target population, sample size, study methodology, development stage, accessory requirement, country of development, operating system, and cost. Given the search timeline, studies involving COVID-19 were not included in the analysis. Of 13,262 studies identified by the screen, 33 met inclusion criteria. 12% were randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with 58% of publications representing technical descriptions. 62% of studies had 100 or fewer subjects. All studied technologies involved diagnosis or screening steps; none addressed the monitoring of infections. 52% focused on priority diseases (HIV, malaria, tuberculosis), but only 12% addressed a neglected tropical disease. Although most reported studies were priced under 20USD at time of publication, two thirds of the records did not yet specify a cost for the study technology. We conclude that there are only a small number of mHealth technologies focusing on innovative methods of screening and diagnosing communicable diseases potentially of use in LMICs. Rigorous RCTs, analyses with large sample size, and technologies assisting in the monitoring of diseases are needed.

CITATION EXPORT

Pascal Geldsetzer, Sergio Flores, Blanca Flores et al.. Healthcare provider-targeted mobile applications to diagnose, screen, or monitor communicable diseases of public health importance in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. PLOS Digital Health. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000156

AUTHORS

9 · 9 CENTRES

Pascal Geldsetzer, Sergio Flores, Blanca Flores, Abu Bakarr Rogers, Andrew Y Chang, Ana Luísa Neves, Hamish S Fraser, Ana Luísa Neves, Hamish S Fraser

1Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University; Stanford, California; United States of America
2Chan Zuckerberg Biohub; San Francisco, California; United States of America
3Center for Innovation in Global Health, Stanford University; Stanford, California; United States of America
4Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University; Sweden
5Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg; Germany
6Stanford University School of Medicine; Stanford, California; United States of America
7Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University; Stanford, California; United States of America
8Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University; Stanford, California; United States of America
9Imperial College London, UNITED KINGDOM