Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39173152›Full record

SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2024

Current Status of Barriers to mHealth Access Among Patients With Stroke and Steps Toward the Digital Health Era: Systematic Review.

Atsadaporn Niyomyart, Suebsarn Ruksakulpiwat, Chitchanok Benjasirisan, Lalipat Phianhasin, Kabtamu Nigussie, Sutthinee Thorngthip, Gazi Shamita, Jai Thampakkul, Lidya Begashaw

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Atsadaporn NiyomyartRamathibodi School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-5460-2934
Suebsarn RuksakulpiwatDepartment of Medical Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-2168-5195
Chitchanok BenjasirisanDepartment of Medical Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-6465-0721
Lalipat PhianhasinDepartment of Medical Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-1960-5539
Kabtamu NigussieDepartment of Psychiatry, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, Harar, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-9113-7103
Sutthinee ThorngthipDepartment of Nursing Siriraj Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0009-0007-9393-5081
Gazi ShamitaDepartment of Dermatology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-6565-869X
Jai ThampakkulCase School of Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID 0009-0005-4494-3523
Lidya BegashawJack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-0936-7564

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health (mHealth) offers significant benefits for patients with stroke, facilitating remote monitoring and personalized health care solutions beyond traditional settings. However, there is a dearth of comprehensive data, particularly qualitative insights, on the barriers to mHealth access. Understanding these barriers is crucial for devising strategies to enhance mHealth use among patients with stroke.

objectiveThis study aims to examine the recent literature focusing on barriers to mHealth access among patients with stroke.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus Full Text was conducted for literature published between 2017 and 2023. Abstracts and full texts were independently screened based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data synthesis was performed using the convergent integrated analysis framework recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

resultsA total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority were qualitative studies (about 42%), followed by mixed methods (25%), pilot studies (about 17%), nonrandomized controlled trials (about 8%), and observational studies (about 8%). Participants included patients with stroke, caregivers, and various health care professionals. The most common mHealth practices were home-based telerehabilitation (30%) and poststroke mHealth and telecare services (20%). Identified barriers were categorized into two primary themes: (1) at the patient level and (2) at the health provider-patient-device interaction level. The first theme includes 2 subthemes: health-related issues and patient acceptability. The second theme encompassed 3 subthemes: infrastructure challenges (including software, networking, and hardware), support system deficiencies, and time constraints.

conclusionsThis systematic review underscores significant barriers to mHealth adoption among patients with stroke. Addressing these barriers in future research is imperative to ensure that mHealth solutions effectively meet patients' needs.

Indexed as

Digital HealthStrokeTelemedicineHealth Services AccessibilityHumansbarrierdigital healthmHealthmobile phonesstrokesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39173152
PMCPMC11377914

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.