↓ Skip to main content

Community Health Workers and Mobile Technology: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
80 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
368 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
924 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Community Health Workers and Mobile Technology: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0065772
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Braun, Caricia Catalani, Julian Wimbush, Dennis Israelski

Abstract

In low-resource settings, community health workers are frontline providers who shoulder the health service delivery burden. Increasingly, mobile technologies are developed, tested, and deployed with community health workers to facilitate tasks and improve outcomes. We reviewed the evidence for the use of mobile technology by community health workers to identify opportunities and challenges for strengthening health systems in resource-constrained settings. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from health, medical, social science, and engineering databases, using PRISMA guidelines. We identified a total of 25 unique full-text research articles on community health workers and their use of mobile technology for the delivery of health services. Community health workers have used mobile tools to advance a broad range of health aims throughout the globe, particularly maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS, and sexual and reproductive health. Most commonly, community health workers use mobile technology to collect field-based health data, receive alerts and reminders, facilitate health education sessions, and conduct person-to-person communication. Programmatic efforts to strengthen health service delivery focus on improving adherence to standards and guidelines, community education and training, and programmatic leadership and management practices. Those studies that evaluated program outcomes provided some evidence that mobile tools help community health workers to improve the quality of care provided, efficiency of services, and capacity for program monitoring. Evidence suggests mobile technology presents promising opportunities to improve the range and quality of services provided by community health workers. Small-scale efforts, pilot projects, and preliminary descriptive studies are increasing, and there is a trend toward using feasible and acceptable interventions that lead to positive program outcomes through operational improvements and rigorous study designs. Programmatic and scientific gaps will need to be addressed by global leaders as they advance the use and assessment of mobile technology tools for community health workers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 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 924 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 <1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 899 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 215 23%
Researcher 123 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 105 11%
Student > Postgraduate 65 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 63 7%
Other 193 21%
Unknown 160 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 218 24%
Social Sciences 126 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 100 11%
Computer Science 88 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 33 4%
Other 159 17%
Unknown 200 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 110. 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 01 December 2021.
All research outputs
#388,421
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#5,483
of 225,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,671
of 214,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#143
of 4,705 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 214,017 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,705 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.