MobileActive.org

For the first time the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Global Observatory for eHealth (GOe) has sought to determine the status of mHealth in Member States; its 2009 global survey contained a section specifically devoted to mHealth. Completed by 114 Member States, the survey documented for analysis four aspects of mHealth: adoption of initiatives, types of initiatives, status of evaluation, and barriers to implementation. Fourteen categories of mHealth services were surveyed: health call centres, emergency toll-free telephone services, managing emergencies and disasters, mobile telemedicine, appointment reminders, community mobilization and health promotion, treatment compliance, mobile patient records, information access, patient monitoring, health surveys and data collection, surveillance, health awareness raising, and decision support systems.

The survey shows there is a groundswell of activity.  The majority of Member States (83%) reported offering at least one type of mHealth service. However, many countries offered four to six programmes. The four most frequently reported mHealth initiatives were: health call centres (59%), emergency toll-free telephone services (55%), managing emergencies and disasters (54%), and mobile telemedicine (49%). With the exception of health call centres, emergency toll-free telephone services, and managing emergencies and disasters, approximately two thirds of mHealth programmes are in the pilot or informal stage.

The survey results highlight that the dominant form of mHealth today is characterized by small-scale pilot projects that address single issues in information sharing and access. There were only limited larger mHealth implementations (primarily supported by public-private partnerships). While it is anticipated that large-scale and complex programmes will become more common as mHealth matures, strategies and policies that integrate eHealth and mHealth interoperability into health services would be wise. mHealth is no different from other areas of eHealth in its need to adopt globally accepted standards and interoperable technologies, ideally using open architecture. The use of standardized information and communication technologies would enhance efficiency and reduce cost. To accomplish this, countries will need to collaborate in developing global best practices so that data can move more effectively between systems and applications. 

This paper presents a case study of the efficiency gains resulting from the introduction of electronic technologies to monitor and support adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in Guguletu, South Africa. It suggests that the rollout of HAART to such resource-poor communities can be assisted significantly by the introduction of modified cellphones (to provide home based support to people on HAART and improve the management of adherence data) and simple barcoding and scanning equipment (to manage drug supplies). The cellphones have improved the management of information, and simplified the working lives of therapeutic counsellors, thereby enabling them to spend less time on administration and to devote a constant amount of time per
patient even though their case loads have risen threefold. It has helped integrate the local-level
primary health service provision of HAART with the kind of centralised data capture and analysis
that could potentially support a national HAART rollout.

This White Paper, written by a team of researchers at the Center for Global Health and Economic Development at the Earth Institute, Columbia University, examines and synthesizes the existing mHealth literature to assess the current state of mHealth knowledge, evaluate the impact of mHealth implementations in LMICs and to examine programming, policy and research-related barriers to and gaps in mHealth scale and sustainability.

The paper is divided into two main sections. The first section reviews and summarizes the peer-reviewed literature on mHealth initiatives (focus on LMICS) to highlight trends and challenges. The second section examines the existing mHealth policy environment, barriers and gaps, and key drivers needed for an enabling policy environment.

The major thematic areas include:

• Treatment Compliance
• Data Collection and Disease Surveillance
• Health Information Systems and Point of Care Support
• Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
• Emergency Medical Response

The review identified significant gaps in mHealth knowledge stemming from the limited scale and scope of mHealth implementation and evaluation, a policy environment that does not link health objectives and related metrics to available mHealth tools and systems, and little investment in cost-benefit studies to assess mHealth value and health outcomes research to assess success factors and weed out poor investments.