↓ Skip to main content

Use of mHealth Systems and Tools for Non-Communicable Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: a Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 594)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
116 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
412 Mendeley
Title
Use of mHealth Systems and Tools for Non-Communicable Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: a Systematic Review
Published in
Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12265-014-9581-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Peiris, Devarsetty Praveen, Claire Johnson, Kishor Mogulluru

Abstract

With the rapid adoption of mobile devices, mobile health (mHealth) offers the potential to transform health care delivery, especially in the world's poorest regions. We systematically reviewed the literature to determine the impact of mHealth interventions on health care quality for non-communicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries and to identify knowledge gaps in this rapidly evolving field. Overall, we found few high-quality studies. Most studies narrowly focused on text messaging systems for patient behavior change, and few studies examined the health systems strengthening aspects of mHealth. There were limited literature reporting clinical effectiveness, costs, and patient acceptability, and none reporting equity and safety issues. Despite the bold promise of mHealth to improve health care, much remains unknown about whether and how this will be fulfilled. Encouragingly, we identified some registered clinical trial protocols of large-scale, multidimensional mHealth interventions, suggesting that the current limited evidence base will expand in coming years.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 412 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 406 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 74 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 14%
Researcher 58 14%
Student > Postgraduate 32 8%
Student > Bachelor 26 6%
Other 89 22%
Unknown 74 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 12%
Computer Science 42 10%
Social Sciences 25 6%
Engineering 15 4%
Other 74 18%
Unknown 98 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,651,986
of 23,506,136 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#24
of 594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,107
of 240,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,506,136 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 594 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.