SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2023
Influencing Factors to mHealth Uptake With Indigenous Populations: Qualitative Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Developing a Virtual Reality Application for Social and Emotional Wellbeing and Cultural Determinants of Health Support With an Aboriginal Community of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: Protocol for an Acceptability and Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Theory-based evaluation of user participation in MedPrev, a digital preventive intervention in primary care in France.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Mobile health interventions tailored to immigrant populations with diabetes: an integrative review.BMC public health · 2025Review
- Shaping the Future of DHT Assessment: Insights on Industry Challenges, Developer Needs, and a Harmonized, European HTA Framework.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
- Acceptance, Drivers, and Barriers to Use of mHealth Apps to Improve Quality of Life in Female Patients Affected by Hypothyroidism: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Cross-Analysis of mHealth Social Acceptance Among Youth: A Comparative Study Between Japan and China.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An Exploration of the Goodness of Fit of Web-Based Tools for Māori: Qualitative Study Using Interviews and Focus Groups.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Mobile health application for the treatment of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: development and quality analysis.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe advancements and abundance of mobile phones and portable health devices have created an opportunity to use mobile health (mHealth) for population health systems. There is increasing evidence for the feasibility and acceptance of mHealth with Indigenous populations. Providing a synthesis of qualitative findings of mHealth with Indigenous populations will gain insights into the strengths and challenges to mHealth use in Indigenous populations.
objectiveThis review aimed to identify and synthesize qualitative data pertaining to the experiences and perceptions of mHealth from the perspectives of end users (patients and service providers) living in the colonial settler democracies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the Pacific Islands, and the Sápmi region of northern Europe.
methodsIn May 2021, systematic searches of peer-reviewed, scientific papers were conducted across the 5 databases of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Qualitative or mixed method studies were included where a mHealth intervention was the primary focus for responding to health challenges with Indigenous populations. Two authors independently screened papers for eligibility and assessed the risk of bias using a modified version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. A meta-aggregative approach was used to analyze the findings of included studies.
resultsSeventeen papers met the eligibility criteria, 8 studies with patients, 7 studies with service providers, and 2 studies that included both patients and service providers. Studies were conducted in Australia (n=10), Canada (n=2), New Zealand (n=2), Papua New Guinea (n=1), the United States (n=1), and Samoa (n=1). Our interpretation of these qualitative findings shows commonalities between Indigenous patients' and service providers' perceptions of mHealth. We summarize our findings in six themes: (1) mHealth literacy, (2) mHealth as a facilitator for connection and support, (3) mHealth content needed to be culturally relevant, (4) mHealth security and confidentiality, (5) mHealth supporting rather than replacing service providers, and (6) workplace and organizational capacity.
conclusionsThis research suggests that mHealth can meet the needs of both patients and service providers when the mHealth intervention is culturally relevant, accounts for digital and health literacy, incorporates interactive components, is supported by workplaces, fits into health provider workflows, and meets security and confidentiality standards. Future mHealth research with Indigenous populations should partner with key representatives (eg, patients, service providers, and executive leaders) in the mHealth design appropriate to the purpose, people, setting, and delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.