What role do mHealth interventions play in changing gender relations? A systematic review of qualitative findings. (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth K Kirkwood ◽  
Caitlin Clymer ◽  
Kheminda Imbulana ◽  
Sumaya Mozumder ◽  
Michael John Dibley ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND The rapid, widespread growth of mobile technologies, in low-and-middle-income countries, can offer groundbreaking ways to disseminate public health interventions. However, gender-based inequalities present a challenge for women to access mobile technology. Research has shown that mHealth interventions can impact gender relations in positive and negative ways, yet few mHealth programs use a gender sensitive lens when designing, implementing, or analyzing programs. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to identify and summarize the findings of qualitative research studies which explore the impact of mobile health interventions on gender relations as a result of participating in such initiatives in low-and-middle income countries. METHODS We performed a systematic literature review to examines empirical evidence of changes in gender relations attributed to their participation in an mHealth intervention in a low-and-middle income country. Peer-reviewed articles included needed to evaluate an mHealth intervention and were published between 2013 and 2020. Articles were excluded that used mHealth that solely targeted health workers, did not assess a specific intervention or used mobile technology for data collection only or were formative or exploratory in nature. The search terms were entered into four key electronic databases, Medline, Excerpta Médica Database (EMBASE), PsycINFO, and Scopus generating a comprehensive list of potentially relevant peer-reviewed articles. Thematic analysis was used to identify, analyze, and report themes emerged from our data. RESULTS From the 578 full text articles retrieved, fourteen articles were eligible for inclusion. None of the articles appraised gender from the outset. Articles uncovered findings on gender relations through the course of the intervention or post program evaluation. Most studies took place in Sub-Saharan Africa with the remainder in South and South East Asia. Articles focused on maternal and child health, HIV diagnosis and treatment, and reproductive health. This review found mHealth programs could enhance spousal communication, foster emotional support between couples, improve women’s self-efficacy and autonomy in seeking health information and services, and increase involvement in health-related decision making. Despite the positive impacts, some mHealth interventions had an adverse effect, reinforcing the digital divide, upholding men as gatekeepers of information and sole decision makers and exacerbating relationship problems. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest given the rapid, persistent upscale of mobile health interventions in low-and-middle income settings, it is imperative to design interventions that consider the impact they may have on power dynamics and gender relations. Future research is needed to fill evidence gaps on gender and mHealth, acknowledging that women are not passive beneficiaries and need to actively participate and be empowered by mHealth interventions. CLINICALTRIAL The systematic review is registered with Prospero (CRD42021218001)

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 1335-1350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany Schriver ◽  
Mahua Mandal ◽  
Arundati Muralidharan ◽  
Anthony Nwosu ◽  
Radhika Dayal ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 236-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Acharya ◽  
S. Vellakkal ◽  
F. Taylor ◽  
E. Masset ◽  
A. Satija ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 2000127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn A. Brakema ◽  
Debbie Vermond ◽  
Hilary Pinnock ◽  
Christos Lionis ◽  
Bruce Kirenga ◽  
...  

The vast majority of patients with chronic respiratory disease live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Paradoxically, relevant interventions often fail to be effective particularly in these settings, as LMICs lack solid evidence on how to implement interventions successfully. Therefore, we aimed to identify factors critical to the implementation of lung health interventions in LMICs, and weigh their level of evidence.This systematic review followed Cochrane methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting standards. We searched eight databases without date or language restrictions in July 2019, and included all relevant original, peer-reviewed articles. Two researchers independently selected articles, critically appraised them (using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)/Meta Quality Appraisal Tool (MetaQAT)), extracted data, coded factors (following the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)), and assigned levels of confidence in the factors (via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual)). We meta-synthesised levels of evidence of the factors based on their frequency and the assigned level of confidence (PROSPERO:CRD42018088687).We included 37 articles out of 9111 screened. Studies were performed across the globe in a broad range of settings. Factors identified with a high level of evidence were: 1) “Understanding needs of local users”; 2) ensuring “Compatibility” of interventions with local contexts (cultures, infrastructures); 3) identifying influential stakeholders and applying “Engagement” strategies; 4) ensuring adequate “Access to knowledge and information”; and 5) addressing “Resource availability”. All implementation factors and their level of evidence were synthesised in an implementation tool.To conclude, this study identified implementation factors for lung health interventions in LMICs, weighed their level of evidence, and integrated the results into an implementation tool for practice. Policymakers, non-governmental organisations, practitioners, and researchers may use this FRESH AIR (Free Respiratory Evaluation and Smoke-exposure reduction by primary Health cAre Integrated gRoups) Implementation tool to develop evidence-based implementation strategies for related interventions. This could increase interventions’ implementation success, thereby optimising the use of already-scarce resources and improving health outcomes.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ndubuisi Onyemaechi ◽  
William N.A. Menson ◽  
Xan Goodman ◽  
Samantha Slinkard ◽  
Obinna E Onwujekwe ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The review aimed at systematically examining the evidence in articles that assess the clinical effects and impact of traditional bonesetters on contemporary fracture care in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs).Methods: A systematic review was conducted. Articles were identified by database searching ((PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, and Web of Science). Searching, selecting and reporting were conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement. The key words that were used in search for literature were: “Bonesetter”, “fracture healer” and “traditional bone setting”. Publications included for review were original articles, set in an LMIC and directly talked about the role and/or impact of traditional bonesetters in providing fracture care. Papers that focused on Low and Middle Income (LMIC) settings were reviewed.Results: A total of 176 papers were screened for eligibility and 15 studies were finally included. Nine were prospective studies, while 6 were retrospective studies. Most of the studies focused on clinical impacts of bone setter intervention. The evidence from the publications show that the main clinical effects of traditional bonesetters had been deleterious, but they had the potential to contribute positively when trained.Conclusion: Few well designed studies are available that assessed the impact of traditional bonesetters. Reported cases and reviews indicate their impact to be deleterious. However, the potential exist that when trained, these deleterious impact can be reduced through training for traditional bonesetters who contribute to fracture care in many LMICs.


Author(s):  
Sohail Jannesari ◽  
Claudia Lotito ◽  
Giulia Turrini ◽  
Siân Oram ◽  
Corrado Barbui

Abstract Background Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) host the majority of the world’s refugees. Evidence suggests that refugees and asylum seekers have high mental health needs compared to the host country population. However, they face many social, economic and culture barriers to receiving mental health care and benefitting from mental health interventions. This paper examines how these contextual factors affect the implementation of mental health interventions for refugees and asylum seekers in LMICs. Methods We conducted a qualitative systematic review searching 11 databases and 24 relevant government and non-governmental organisation (NGO) websites. We spoke with academic experts and NGO professionals for recommendations, and conducted forwards and backwards citation tracking. Results From 2055 records in abstract and title screening, and then 99 in full-text screening, 18 eligible studies were identified. Qualitative thematic synthesis was conducted on eligible papers. Three main thematic clusters were identified around: (1) support during a time of pressure and insecurity, and the need for intervention flexibility through facilitator and participant autonomy; (2) different cultural conceptions of mental health, and how interventions negotiated these differences; and (3) the importance of facilitator skills, knowledge, characteristics and relationships to intervention implementation. Conclusion Evidence suggests that intervention coordinators and developers should continue to: (1) think broadly about the range of social influences on mental health, addressing structural issues where possible; (2) offer flexibility with intervention style, content and timings; and (3) encourage building research capacity in LMICs while acknowledging pre-existing mental health knowledge and practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document