Literature DB >> 29437546

Theories Applied to m-Health Interventions for Behavior Change in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

Yoon-Min Cho1,2, Seohyun Lee2, Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam3,4, Sun-Young Kim1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recently there has been dramatic increase in the use of mobile technologies for health (m-Health) in both high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, little is known whether m-Health interventions in LMICs are based on relevant theories critical for effective implementation of such interventions. This review aimed to systematically identify m-Health studies on health behavioral changes in LMICs and to examine how each study applied behavior change theories.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the standard method from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. By searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]), we identified eligible studies published in English from inception to June 30, 2017. For the identified m-Health studies in LMICs, we examined their theoretical bases, use of behavior change techniques (BCTs), and modes of delivery.
RESULTS: A total of 14 m-Health studies on behavioral changes were identified and, among them, only 5 studies adopted behavior change theory. The most frequently cited theory was the health belief model, which was adopted in three studies. Likewise, studies have applied only a limited number of BCTs. Among the seven BCTs identified, the most frequently used one was the social support (practical) technique for medication reminder and medical appointment. m-Health studies in LMICs most commonly used short messaging services and phone calls as modes of delivery for behavior change interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: m-Health studies in LMICs are suboptimally based on behavior change theory yet. To maximize effectiveness of m-Health, rigorous delivery methods as well as theory-based intervention designs will be needed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  behavioral health; e-health; m-Health; telehealth; telemedicine

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29437546      PMCID: PMC6205046          DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2017.0249

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Telemed J E Health        ISSN: 1530-5627            Impact factor:   3.536


Background

Rapid development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) has influenced many aspects of life. Among ICTs, mobile technology has been considered as a promising tool in multiple areas and has become a necessity in modern life. Particularly, the application of mobile technology in healthcare has drawn wide attention and has been commonly called mobile health (m-Health). More specifically, m-Health is defined as health intervention using mobile technologies such as mobile phones, wearable devices, personal digital assistants, tablet PCs, and so on.[1] The application of m-Health intervention has been expanded from healthcare support (e.g., clinical decision support and electronic medical records) to health prevention, promotion, diagnosis, and monitoring.[2] In terms of target diseases, m-Health has particularly focused on chronic diseases. In managing chronic conditions, there has been a consensus that the essential services providing frequent and timely services for consultation, prescription, and medical advice can be more crucial than the intensive care or cutting-edge medical equipment. In this light, m-Health has been considered as an effective tool to deliver such essential services for managing chronic diseases.[3] The application of m-Health has been increasing in both developed and developing country settings. Recently, m-Health is drawing an attention for its potential to improve health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that suffer from inadequate health delivery systems due to insufficient resources. Generally, the ICT penetration rate is very low in LMICs, but that of mobile technology is exceptionally high. For example, in 2015, the global mobile subscription rate and the average mobile subscription rate for LMICs reached 63% and 59%, respectively.[4,5] Such high coverage of mobile devices may facilitate m-Health implementation in these countries. Therefore, the implementation of m-Health will likely be feasible in LMICs as a solution for better health delivery systems. Also, given that the burden of noncommunicable diseases currently outweighs that of communicable diseases even in most LMICs,[6] m-Health can contribute to reducing the current global burden of diseases through effective management of chronic diseases. Although m-Health is gaining popularity in the health sector, there has been concern on its effectiveness. While the evidence-based m-Health intervention has been emphasized, the value and scientific evidence of m-Health have been constantly challenged due to methodological issues.[7] For example, systematic reviews on diabetes management using m-Health reported a positive association between m-Health and the reduction of risky behaviors among diabetic patients, while others argue that the results have critical limitations such as methodological flaws leading to risk of bias or insufficient sample size.[8,9] Similar issues have been raised for m-Health studies in LMICs, emphasizing the need for rigorous study design, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[10-12] Another critical issue for the effective implementation of m-Health is whether m-Health intervention is based on relevant theories or not. Applying relevant theories to an m-Health project is particularly important because it can lead to well-developed intervention strategies and therefore, better health outcomes.[9,13] Behavior change theory is a group of theories that aims to explain and structuralize the determinants of health behavior. It has been widely used for studies related to behavior change or interventions for health promotion. However, the usefulness and value of behavior change theory often depend on the context and relevance for an intervention study.[14] Therefore, an m-Health program for behavior change should carefully incorporate a behavior change theory that would be most appropriate for the specific intervention strategies. Considering the limited availability of resources in LMICs, effective, well-designed m-Health interventions based on a theory can be a viable option for these countries. However, little is known about whether m-Health interventions in LMICs are based on relevant theories, which is critical for effective implementation of such interventions. To fill this knowledge gap, this review aimed to systematically identify m-Health studies on health behavioral changes in LMICs and to examine whether each study was based on any behavior change theories. Ultimately, this systematic review is expected to provide insight for future m-Health studies to maximize their effectiveness in the LMICs context.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review following the standard method of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.[15] A systematic search using the following electronic bibliographic databases was conducted: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE. In addition, snowballing search was performed using the reference lists of the selected literature. The search protocol including keywords and the search strings is presented in the . Two authors (Y.-M.C. and S.L.) independently assessed the eligibility of studies throughout the entire selection process. The reviewers first screened the titles and abstracts of the studies identified from the databases, and then conducted a full-text assessment of potentially eligible studies for final inclusion. If there was any discrepancy, two reviewers discussed and reached an agreement through intervention by a senior author (S.-Y.K.). Data extraction was conducted following a similar process and using a template adapted from the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's template for data extraction.[16]

Inclusion Criteria

This review was restricted to studies published in English, but it did not restrict the date of publication, and included studies published through June 30, 2017. The target populations were confined to individuals in LMICs (below $3,955 gross national income [GNI] per capita, based on the 2016 cutoff by the World Bank).[17] Upper-middle income countries were excluded, due to the high heterogeneity in socioeconomic status between the two groups (lower-middle vs. upper-middle) of middle-income countries. (A full list of countries considered LMICs is provided in .)
Appendix Table A4

List of Countries Considered as Low- and Middle-Income Countries

INCOME GROUPREGIONCOUNTRIESGNI PER CAPITA (2016 CURRENT US DOLLARS)REMARKS
Low-income (GNI per capita of $1,005 or less in 2016)East Asia and PacificDemocratic People's Republic of KoreaData not available
 Latin America and CaribbeanHaiti780 
 South AsiaAfghanistan580 
  Nepal730 
 Sub-Saharan AfricaBenin820 
  Burkina Faso640 
  Burundi280 
  Central African Republic370 
  Chad720Value in 2011 current dollars (2011 cutoff: below $1,025)
  Comoros760 
  Democratic Republic of the Congo420 
  Eritrea520 
  Ethiopia660 
  The Gambia440 
  Guinea490 
  Guinea-Bissau620 
  Liberia370 
  Madagascar400 
  Malawi320 
  Mali750 
  Mozambique480 
  Niger370 
  Rwanda700 
  Senegal950 
  Sierra Leone490 
  SomaliaData not available
  South Sudan820Value in 2015 current dollars (2015 cutoff: below $1,025)
  Tanzania900 
  Togo540 
  Uganda660 
  Zimbabwe940 
Lower middle-income (GNI per capita between $1,006 and $3,955 in 2016)East Asia and PacificCambodia1,140 
  Indonesia3,400 
  Kiribati2,380 
  Lao PDR2,150 
  Federated States of Micronesia3,680 
  Mongolia3,550 
  Myanmar1,190Value in 2015 current dollars (2015 cutoff: $1,026 to $4,035)
  Papua New Guinea2,160Value in 2014 current dollars (cutoff: $1,046 to $4,125)
  Philippines3,580 
  Solomon Islands1,880 
  Timor-Leste2,180Value in 2015 current dollars (2015 cutoff: $1,026 to $4,035)
  Vanuatu3,170Value in 2014 current dollars (2014 cutoff: $1,046 to $4,125)
  Vietnam2,050 
 Europe and Central AsiaArmenia3,760 
  Georgia3,810 
  Kosovo3,850 
  Kyrgyz Republic1,100 
  Moldova2,120 
  Tajikistan1,110 
  Ukraine2,310 
  Uzbekistan2,220 
 Latin America and CaribbeanBolivia3,070 
  El Salvador3,920 
  Guatemala3,790 
  Honduras2,150 
  Nicaragua2,050 
  Djibouti1,030Value in 2005 current dollars (2005 cutoff: $906 to $3,595)
  Arab Republic of Egypt3,460 
  Jordan3,920 
  Morocco2,850 
  Syrian Arab Republic1,840Value in 2007 current dollars (2007 cutoff: $936 to $3,855)
  Tunisia3,690 
  West Bank and Gaza3,230 
  Republic of Yemen1,040 
 South AsiaBangladesh1,330 
  Bhutan2,510 
  India1,680 
  Pakistan1,510 
  Sri Lanka3,780 
 Sub-Saharan AfricaAngola3,440 
  Cabo Verde2,970 
  Cameroon1,200 
  Republic of the Congo1,710 
  Côte d'Ivoire1,520 
  Ghana1,380 
  Kenya1,380 
  Lesotho1,210 
  Mauritania1,120 
  Nigeria2,450 
  São Tomé and Principe1,730 
  Sudan2,140 
  Swaziland2,830 
  Zambia1,300 

Countries included in this review is highlighted in bold.

GNI, gross national income.

Study types were limited to intervention studies, such as RCTs, case–control studies, quasi-experimental studies, and pre-post design studies. In this review, an intervention for behavior modification was defined as any strategy (e.g., self-management for diseases, education for health knowledge, and medication reminder) to change or maintain people's behavior or attitude to improve health. We included studies on interventions that used mobile devices (wireless and portable electronics including cellular phones, wearable devices, laptop, personal assistance devices, and tablet PC) or mobile technologies (any technologies that enable communication with remote areas, such as phone call, video call, short messaging service [SMS], multimedia messaging service, online-chat, and e-mail) to promote health behavior change.

Data Extraction and Analysis

For the final set of studies included, the following information on the general study characteristics were extracted: study identities (title, authors, and publication year), study methods and setting, participants, type of intervention, and outcomes. To extract data regarding interventions and theories related to behavior, we developed a working framework, adopting the framework used in Webb et al.'s systematic review of behavior changes using the Internet.[18] Their framework consists of three components: (1) theoretical bases, (2) behavior change techniques (BCTs), and (3) modes of delivery. We used their framework as the basis of our own working framework, but modified each component, as follows. First, for the theoretical bases, we introduced the assessment tool developed by Michie and Prestwich[19] to identify the extent to which the intervention designs were theory-based. Second, for BCTs, we adopted the most up-to-date taxonomy on behavior change interventions established by Michie et al.,[20] which contains more detailed classification systems (16 groups clustering 93 BCTs) than the older version of taxonomy used by Webb et al.[18] Lastly, we categorized the modes of delivery into three types (SMS; phone calls; and applications for smartphone), based on the frequently used types of delivery methods from the published literature.

Results

A total of 380 studies were identified as a result of the original search using the study protocol. After removing duplicates and screening the title and abstract, 51 studies were selected for full-text screening. The final number of studies selected based on full-text assessment was 14. presents a flow chart illustrating the entire screening process.

Flow diagram of the study selection process. This graph provides information on the numbers of studies identified, included and excluded, through the phases of the systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Flow diagram of the study selection process. This graph provides information on the numbers of studies identified, included and excluded, through the phases of the systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The 14 studies that met the eligibility criteria consisted of 11 RCTs,[21-31] 2 pre-post studies,[32,33] and 1 quasi-experimental study.[34] The studies were conducted in various settings, including Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cameroon, Honduras, India, Kenya, Pakistan, and Swaziland. The selected studies included interventions for diabetes, HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular diseases, and tuberculosis. presents the detailed characteristics of the identified studies.
Table 1.

Characteristics and Interventions of the Included Studies

STUDYCOUNTRYSTUDY DESIGNTARGET DISEASE/SECTORBEHAVIOR CHANGE TECHNIQUEINTERVENTIONMODE OF DELIVERYOUTCOME MEASURE
Islam et al.[21]BangladeshRCTDiabetesSocial support (practical)Automated SMS to improve medication adherenceSMSDifference of HbA1c
Medication adherence score
Johnson et al.[22]KenyaRCTReproductive healthInstruction on how to perform a behaviorFree text message containing information of family planning methods such as contraceptionSMSLevel of knowledge of family planning
Use of contraception
Kamal et al.[23]PakistanRCTStrokeFeedback on behaviorSMS reminders to improve medication adherenceSMSMedication adherence
Blood pressure
Social support (practical)
Kliner et al.[32]SwazilandPre-post studyHIV/AIDSSocial support (practical)Mobile phone call to reminder medical appointmentPhone callAttendance for follow-up consultation
Lester et al.[24]KenyaRCTHIV/AIDSSocial support (practical)Reminder to improve medicationSMSMedication adherence
Suppression of plasma HIV-1 viral load
Mbuagbaw et al.[25]CameroonRCTHIV/AIDSSocial support (practical)Motivational mobile phone text messagesSMSMedication adherence
Mohammed et al.[26]PakistanRCTPulmonary tuberculosisSocial support (practical)Reminder to take medication through SMS or missed callSMS/phone callTreatment success
Piette et al.[33]HondurasPre-post studyDiabetesFeedback on behaviorIVR calls with diabetes management informationPhone callSelf-management (glycemic control/foot care)
HbA1c
Instruction on how to perform a behavior
Piette et al.[27]Honduras (Mexico)[a]RCTHypertensionSelf-monitoring of behaviorAutomated blood pressure monitoringPhone callBlood pressure
Provided self-care information
Self-monitoring of outcomes of behaviorProvided tailored advice
Feedback on outcomes of behavior
Piette et al.[28]BoliviaRCTDiabetesSelf-monitoring of behaviorHealth and behavior monitoring with tailored feedback through IVRPhone callHealth literacy
Medication adherence
Self-monitoring of outcomes of behaviorPerceived health
Hypertension
Feedback on outcomes of behavior
Pop-Eleches et al.[29]KenyaRCTHIV/AIDSSocial support (practical)Reminder to improve medication adherenceSMSMedication adherence
Rodrigues et al.[34]IndiaQuasi-experimental studyHIV/AIDSSocial support (practical)IVR or SMS reminder for medicationSMS/phone callMedication adherence
Rubinstein et al.[30]Guatemala (Argentina, Peru)[b]RCTHypertensionGoal setting (behavior)Phone call and text messages for support to change behaviorSMS/phone callBlood pressure
Body weight
Intake of high-fat/high sugar foods
Self-monitoring of behavior
Self-monitoring of outcomes of behavior
Feedback on outcomes of behavior
Shetty et al.[31]IndiaRCTDiabetesSocial support (practical)SMS including instructions on medical nutrition therapy, physical activity, reminders on following drug prescriptionSMSFrequency of visit
Physical activity score
Instruction on how to perform a behaviorDietary adherence
Medication adherence
Fasting plasma glucose
HbA1c

Upper middle income countries.

AIDS, acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; HIV, human immuno-deficiency virus; IVR, interactive voice response; RCT, randomized controlled trials; SMS, short messaging service.

Characteristics and Interventions of the Included Studies Upper middle income countries. AIDS, acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; HIV, human immuno-deficiency virus; IVR, interactive voice response; RCT, randomized controlled trials; SMS, short messaging service.

Interventions and Theoretical Bases

Among the 14 studies, 5 studies[21,23,25,30,33] were supported by a behavior change theory. Five different types of theories were used in the studies: (1) behavior learning theory,[35] (2) health belief model,[36] (3) integrated theory of behavior change,[37] (4) social cognitive theory,[38] and (5) transtheoretical model[39] ( for a brief description of each of the five theories). summarizes the detailed aspects of each of the five theory-based studies based on the six categories of the assessment tool for theoretical bases.
Table 2.

Descriptions of the Behavior Change Theories Used in the Included Studies

THEORIESDESCRIPTIONS
BLT[35]Theory that highlights the stimulus and response on behaviors and views that behavior learning occurs when reinforcing the behavior by stimuli
HBM[36]Theory to explain behavior changes with a view that engagements in healthy behavior result from individuals' beliefs about severity of health problems, perceived benefits, perceived barriers or costs of action, and can also be influenced by modifying factors such as self-efficacy and cues to action
ITHB[37]Theory based on the idea that knowledge and beliefs, self-regulation skills such as goal setting and self-monitoring, and social facilitation lead to engagements of self-management
SCT[38]Theory that states that human behavior is produced through personal and environmental interactions and people learn by observing others, with two key components of outcome expectancies and self-efficacy
TTMBH[39]Theory that provides strategies to make decisions for healthy behavior as assessed by individuals' readiness to act, and suggests that the decision of behavior change occurs through five stages including precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance

BLT, behavioral learning theory; HBM, health belief model; ITHB, integrated theory of health behavior; SCT, social cognitive theory; TTMBH, transtheoretical model of behavior change.

Table 3.

Assessment of the Theoretical Bases of the Theory-Based Studies Identified

 REFERENCE TO UNDERPINNING THEORYTARGETING OF RELEVANT THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTSUSING THEORY TO SELECT RECIPIENTS OR TAILOR INTERVENTIONSMEASUREMENT OF CONSTRUCTSTESTING OF MEDIATION EFFECTSREFINEMENT OF THEORY
STUDYIS THEORY MENTIONED?ARE THE RELEVANT THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS TARGETED?IS THEORY USED TO SELECT RECIPIENTS OR TAILOR INTERVENTIONS?ARE THE RELEVANT THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS MEASURED?IS THEORY TESTED?IS THEORY REFINED?
Islam et al.[21]BLT and TTMBH    
Kamal et al.[23]SCT and HBM   
Mbuagbaw et al.[25]HBM    
Piette et al.[33]ITHB    
Rubinstein et al.[30]HBM and TTMBH  

Based on the theory coding scheme by Michie and Prestwich.[19]

Descriptions of the Behavior Change Theories Used in the Included Studies BLT, behavioral learning theory; HBM, health belief model; ITHB, integrated theory of health behavior; SCT, social cognitive theory; TTMBH, transtheoretical model of behavior change. Assessment of the Theoretical Bases of the Theory-Based Studies Identified Based on the theory coding scheme by Michie and Prestwich.[19] The most frequently cited theory was the health belief model, which was adopted in three studies.[23,25,30] The transtheoretical model for behavior change was applied to two studies[21,30] and the behavior learning theory, social cognitive theory, and integrated theory of health behavior were applied once. Kamal et al.[23] conducted an RCT to improve medication adherence in stroke patients, employing the social cognitive theory and the health belief model. In the RCT, contents of SMS were designed to inform participants of the benefits and/or harms that resulted from their health behavior. Mbuagbaw et al.[25] provided the intervention group with reminders and messages for motivation, which were developed through the focus group interview as well as the health belief model. In their intervention, “cues to action,” one of the components in the health belief model, was adopted as a trigger for behavior change through sending a medication reminder. Rubinstein et al.[30] assessed the effectiveness of m-Health for cardiovascular diseases. The distinctive feature of their study was a well-designed intervention based on both the health belief model and the transtheoretical model to enhance physical activities and better diet in LMICs. Tailored counseling calls and SMS in accordance to the participants' readiness of behavior change were provided at five sequential stages of the transthoretical models. Another theory-based study by Islam et al.[21] was an RCT that used both of the behavior learning theory and the transtheoretical model. The study's intervention aimed to modify behaviors and life-style by using SMS as stimuli for medication adherence and patient support, and the study compared outcomes between standard care and the addition of automated SMS to standard diabetes care. Lastly, the study by Piette et al.[33] applied the integrated theory of behavior change for diabetes care management through interactive voice response. In all of the five theory-based studies, m-Health interventions were integrated with one or more constructs of theory. Two studies[23,30] measured a construct of theory, and one study[30] provided individual-tailored intervention based on a theory. However, none of the studies used a theory in assessing the mediation effect of theory. The remaining nine studies[22,24,26-29,31,32,34] did not mention any application of theories. In terms of intervention type, most of the studies used an SMS reminder to track medication schedule and ultimately to increase medication compliance. Some of the studies[24,26,29,31,34] also provided interventions such as a social message, physical activity, and diet care depending on the purpose of each study.

Behavior Change Techniques

A total of 7 BCTs were identified in the included studies. Six studies employed more than one BCT. The most frequently used BCT was the social support (practical) technique, which is the taxonomy used by Michie et al.[20] It refers to the access to technical advice and assistance for health behaviors from friends, relatives, colleagues, and staff. All nine studies[21,23-26,29,31,32,34] using the social support (practical) technique were intended to encourage medication intake or to remind of a medical appointment by phone call from research staff or via automated SMS. The second most frequently applied BCTs belonged to the “Feedback and Monitoring” category, and included a total of four techniques: feedback on behavior, self-monitoring of behavior', self-monitoring of outcomes of behavior, and feedback on outcomes of behavior.[23,27,28,30,33] For example, Piette et al.'s study[27] for hypertension management employed self-monitoring BCT. In their study, investigators provided home monitoring equipment to check blood pressure periodically, and gave feedback based on the monitored data. The remaining two BCTs identified were the “instruction on how to perform a behavior” technique (belonging to the “Shaping Knowledge” group) and the “goal setting of behavior” technique. The former refers to the delivery of information, health behavior management, and dissemination of best practices through mobile functions, and were used in three of the 14 studies.[22,31,33] The “goal setting of behavior” technique was used in Rubinstein et al.'s study,[30] in which participants chose one of the four target behaviors: reduction of sodium intake, reduction of high-fat/high-sugar intake, increase in fruit/vegetable intake, and encouragement of physical activity.

Modes of Delivery

The most commonly used mode of delivery was SMS, which was adopted in 10 out of the 14 studies.[21-26,29-31,34] Particularly, a reminder service was the most frequently used strategy, followed by the transmission of information on health behavior and consultation through text messages. Phone calls were used in seven selected studies.[26-28,30,32-34] In these studies, the patients' behavior was monitored and the information on health and disease management was delivered via phone calls. No study used a smartphone as a delivery mode.

Discussion

m-Health has attracted attention as a potentially cost-effective means to improve healthcare in LMICs through its potential to lower geographic barriers to healthcare. m-Health can be a particularly useful tool in managing chronic diseases that require behavior change. To ensure the effectiveness of m-Health interventions in LMICs, it is crucial to base the study design on relevant theories. Our review explored behavior change studies using mobile devices in LMICs, focused on the application of behavior change theory. Overall, the findings of our review suggest that m-Health studies in LMICs are suboptimally based on behavior change theory. Specifically, in terms of each of the three components (theoretical bases, BCTs, and modes of delivery) of the assessment framework, our review highlights the following: First, the application of theory-based design of an m-Health intervention for behavior changes appear to be insufficient. Among the 14 studies included in our review, only a minor proportion (36%) was found to be based on behavior change theories. Given the fact that theory-based research appeared to be more effective than the studies that do not employ a theory,[13,18,40] the application of behavior change theory should be an essential step for m-Health research design in the future,[41] particularly for LMICs with relatively poor healthcare environments. Second, only limited types of BCTs have been applied in m-Health studies for behavior change. Even the 5 theory-based studies identified in our review, have used a very limited number/range of BCTs (7 out of 93 techniques classified). One possible reason for such limited application might be that mobile technology has strengths in monitoring a patient's status or sending reminders and thus BCTs related to this nature tend to be more often used. Another potential reason might be that studies have repeatedly applied proven techniques from previous studies rather than adopting alternative new BCTs. For future m-Health interventions, it would be desirable to attempt to apply more diverse types of BCTs that can benefit from the mobile platform. Third, as for the modes of delivery, basic delivery modes such as SMS or a phone call, rather than high-end mode such as smartphone or wearable devices, are dominantly used in LMICs. This might be due to the low accessibility to high-end mobile technology in the setting. Another barrier to m-Health implementation in LMICs might be a service fee for users although the fee is not very costly.[32] Future m-Health studies in LMICs should consider that the use of m-Health in LMICs seems to be influenced by accessibility and affordability of technology based on socioeconomic situations specific to each country.[42] Based on our analysis of the identified theory-based studies using the assessment framework, our review also suggests that the studies share the following aspects and thus there is room for improvement for the way theories are applied. First of all, interventions were often supported by only a selected set of constructs, rather than by the whole theory. It is suboptimal to apply a partial set of constructs of a theory since behavioral change is a complicated process and thus might require more than a single step of a given process. Next, the effectiveness of the model constructs linked to an intervention was rarely assessed. Only 2 out of the 14 studies measured the constructs of models.[23,30] The constructs of a model should be measured to explain the effects of the interventions for behavior change based on the theoretical explanations. Lastly, none of the studies except Rubinstein et al.'s applied theories in developing a tailored intervention or selecting participants. Since the preconditions for the promotion of healthier behavior vary among individuals, it is crucial to design an appropriate design and to select a suitable study population based on a theory. Our study has limitations. First, due to the heterogeneity in study setting, target diseases, populations, and study design of the included studies, it was not appropriate to conduct any quantitative comparison of the study outcomes between the theory-based and nontheory-based studies. Second, our review mainly concerns with the extracted data on the application of theory for m-Health interventions. The limited data extracted from the articles were not sufficient to understand how theories were incorporated within each individual study. For this reason, we conducted an additional search for the original study protocols of the studies and provided more details when available. Despite the limitations, our review provides a comprehensive summary of the trend and current status of the application of behavioral theories in m-Health interventions in resource-poor settings. Additionally, it provides insights into the crucial aspects of m-Health intervention designs for future efforts to utilize m-Health for health improvement in LMICs.

Conclusions

Our review shows that m-Health studies in LMICs are suboptimally based on behavior change theory yet and the way theories are applied could be further improved. Considering the significant role of behavior change theory in public health, the application of established theories for health promotion would be a feasible approach to evidence-based m-Health interventions in LMICs. Future m-Health studies on behavior change in LMICs should consider the application of relevant behavior theories, use of BCTs when applicable, as well as the most appropriate modes of delivery.
Appendix Table A1.

Search Protocol (EMBASE)

  SEARCH WORDSRESULTS
Population1LMIC990
 2“low and middle income”6,346
 3(“low income” OR “middle income”) AND (countr* OR setting)16,332
 4“developing country” OR “developing countries”70,593
 5“resource poor” OR “poor resource” OR “resource limited” OR “resource constrained” OR “low-resource”15,471
Population total6#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #596,595
Intervention 17m-Health OR “mobile health” OR (mobile NEXT/2 health)2,034
 8“mobile phone”/exp OR “mobile phone” OR “cell phone”/exp OR “cell phone” OR “cellular phone”/exp OR “cellular phone” OR “smart phone”/exp OR “smart phone”12,741
 9“mobile device” OR “wearable device” OR “tablet”/exp OR “tablet” OR pda OR laptop OR ipad OR iphone72,512
 10sms OR “short message service” OR mms OR “multimedia message service”12,550
 11“text messag*” OR “instant messag*” OR “voice messag*” OR “phone call” OR “e mail”:ab,ti11,915
 12(mobile OR smartphone OR phone) NEXT/2 (app OR apps OR application OR applications)4,872
 13(mobile OR smartphone OR phone) NEXT/2 (technolog* OR intervention)2,109
Intervention 114#7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13109,040
Intervention 215“model”/exp OR model2,787,259
 16“theory”/exp OR theory351,449
 17“theoretical model”/exp OR “theoretical model”23,853
 18“behavior”/exp OR behavior2,642,677
 19(#15 OR #16 OR #17) AND #18443,094
 20“behavior change”/exp OR “behavior change”27,784
 21“medication compliance” OR “medication adherence” OR “treatment compliance” OR diet:ab,ti OR exercise:ab,ti OR “physical activity”:ab,ti OR “weight control”:ab,ti OR “self-monitoring” OR smoking:ab,ti OR “alcohol consumption”:ab,ti778,625
 22“health behavior” OR “health behaviour” OR behavior OR behaviour AND (model OR theory OR theories)230,294
 23“social learning” OR “social cognitive” OR “reasoned action” OR “planned behavior” OR “social support” OR “community organization model” OR “ecological approach” OR “organizational change” OR “diffusion of innovation” AND (model OR theory)13,245
Intervention 224#19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #231,202,490
P&I1&I225#6 AND #14 AND #24221
 26#25 AND [humans]/lim208
Total  208

LMIC, low- and middle-income country; P&I1&I2, P, population, I1 intervention 1, I2, intervention 2.

Appendix Table A2.

Search Protocol (MEDLINE)

  SEARCH WORDSRESULTS
Population1LMIC OR “low and middle income”7,291
 2(“low income” OR “middle income”) AND (countr* OR setting)18,411
 3“developing country” OR “developing countries”110,547
 4“resource poor” OR “poor resource” OR “resource limited” OR “resource constrained” OR “low-resource”14,274
Population total5#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4133,766
Intervention 16m-Health OR “mobile health”29,243
 7“mobile phone” OR “cell phone” OR “cellular phone” OR “smart phone”6,135
 8“mobile device*” OR “wearable device*” OR tablet* OR pda OR laptop OR ipad OR iphone63,852
 9SMS OR “short message service” OR MMS OR “multimedia message service”9,868
 10“text messaging” OR “text message” OR “instant message” OR “voice message” OR “phone call” OR e-mail[tiab]8,951
 11(Mobile OR smartphone OR phone) NEAR (app OR apps OR application OR applications)269
 12(Mobile OR smartphone OR phone OR “mobile phone”) NEAR (technolog* OR intervention)363
Intervention 113#6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12113,734
Intervention 214Model theoretical[MeSH] AND (behavior OR behaviour)181,246
 15“behavior change” OR “behaviour change” OR “behavioral change” OR “behavioural change” OR “health behavior” OR “health behaviour”61,649
 16“Medication Compliance” OR “Medication adherence” OR “Treatment compliance” OR Diet[tiab] OR Exercise[tiab] OR “physical activity”[tiab] OR “Weight control”[tiab] OR self-monitoring OR smoking[tiab] OR “alcohol consumption”747,519
 17(“health behavior” OR “health behaviour” OR behavior OR behaviour) AND (model OR theory OR theories)258,831
 18(“social learning” OR “behavioural learning” OR “behavioral learning” OR “transtheoretical” OR “social cognitive” OR “reasoned action” OR “planned behavior” OR “social support” OR “community organization model” OR “ecological approach” OR “organizational change” OR “diffusion of innovation”) AND (model OR theory)20,442
Intervention 219#14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #181,104,274
P&I1&I220#5 AND #13 AND #19145
  Filter: Human105
Total  105

LMIC, low- and middle-income country; P&I1&I2, P, population, I1 intervention 1, I2, intervention 2.

Appendix Table A3.

Search Protocol (CENTRAL)

  SEARCH WORDSRESULTS
Population1LMIC OR “low and middle income”358
 2(“low income” OR “middle income”) AND (countr* OR setting)1,117
 3“developing country” OR “developing countries”3,962
 4“resource poor” OR “poor resource” OR “resource limited” OR “resource constrained” OR “low-resource”1,119
Population total5#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #44,329
Intervention 16m-Health OR “mobile health”353
 7“mobile phone” OR “cell phone” OR “cellular phone” OR “smart phone”1,074
 8“mobile device*” OR “wearable device*” OR tablet* OR pda OR laptop OR ipad OR iphone18,911
 9SMS OR “short message service” OR MMS OR “multimedia message service”1,168
 10“text messaging” OR “text message” OR “instant message” OR “voice message” OR “phone call” OR e-mail[tiab]2,284
 11(Mobile OR smartphone OR phone) NEAR (app OR apps OR application OR applications)662
 12(Mobile OR smartphone OR phone OR “mobile phone”) NEAR (technolog* OR intervention)888
Intervention 113#6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #1222,795
Intervention 214MeSH descriptor: [Models, Theoretical] explode all trees181,246
 15Behavior OR Behaviour21,971
 16#14 AND #152,072
 17“behavior change” OR “behaviour change” OR “behavioral change” OR “behavioural change” OR “health behavior” OR “health behaviour”7,519
 18“Medication Compliance” OR “Medication adherence” OR “Treatment compliance” OR Diet[tiab] OR Exercise[tiab] OR “physical activity”[tiab] OR “Weight control”[tiab] OR self-monitoring OR smoking[tiab] OR “alcohol consumption”90,781
 19(“health behavior” OR “health behaviour” OR behavior OR behaviour) AND (model OR theory OR theories)7,117
 20(“social learning” OR “behavioural learning” OR “behavioral learning” OR “transtheoretical” OR “social cognitive” OR “reasoned action” OR “planned behavior” OR “social support” OR “community organization model” OR “ecological approach” OR “organizational change” OR “diffusion of innovation”) AND (model OR theory)1,866
Intervention 221#16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20100,507
P&I1&I222#5 AND #13 AND #2162
Total  62

CENTRAL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; P&I1&I2, P, population, I1 intervention 1, I2, intervention 2.

  35 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of mHealth behavior change communication interventions in developing countries: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Tilly A Gurman; Sara E Rubin; Amira A Roess
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2012

Review 2.  Does theory influence the effectiveness of health behavior interventions? Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andrew Prestwich; Falko F Sniehotta; Craig Whittington; Stephan U Dombrowski; Lizzie Rogers; Susan Michie
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2013-06-03       Impact factor: 4.267

3.  Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme.

Authors:  Susan Michie; Andrew Prestwich
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.267

4.  Effects of Mobile Phone SMS to Improve Glycemic Control Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Bangladesh: A Prospective, Parallel-Group, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam; Louis W Niessen; Uta Ferrari; Liaquat Ali; Jochen Seissler; Andreas Lechner
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 19.112

5.  Reinforcement of adherence to prescription recommendations in Asian Indian diabetes patients using short message service (SMS)--a pilot study.

Authors:  Ananth Samith Shetty; Snehalatha Chamukuttan; Arun Nanditha; Roopesh Kumar Champat Raj; Ambady Ramachandran
Journal:  J Assoc Physicians India       Date:  2011-11

6.  Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective.

Authors:  A Bandura
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 24.137

Review 7.  Diabetes management via mobile phones: a systematic review.

Authors:  Bree Holtz; Carolyn Lauckner
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 3.536

Review 8.  Using the internet to promote health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy.

Authors:  Thomas L Webb; Judith Joseph; Lucy Yardley; Susan Michie
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2010-02-17       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  A randomized controlled behavioral intervention trial to improve medication adherence in adult stroke patients with prescription tailored Short Messaging Service (SMS)-SMS4Stroke study.

Authors:  Ayeesha Kamran Kamal; Quratulain Shaikh; Omrana Pasha; Iqbal Azam; Muhammad Islam; Adeel Ali Memon; Hasan Rehman; Masood Ahmed Akram; Muhammad Affan; Sumaira Nazir; Salman Aziz; Muhammad Jan; Anita Andani; Abdul Muqeet; Bilal Ahmed; Shariq Khoja
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 2.474

Review 10.  The Impact of Automated Brief Messages Promoting Lifestyle Changes Delivered Via Mobile Devices to People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Carukshi Arambepola; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Pavithra Manikavasagam; Nia Roberts; David P French; Andrew Farmer
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 5.428

View more
  28 in total

1.  Effect of an interactive voice response system on self-management in kidney transplant recipients: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Raheleh Ganjali; Zhila Taherzadeh; Mahin Ghorban Sabbagh; Fatemeh Nazemiyan; Fereshteh Mamdouhi; Hamed Tabesh; Shapour Badiee Aval; Reza Golmakani; Sayyed Mostafa Mostafavi; Saeid Eslami
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 2.  Smartphone Apps for Diabetes Medication Adherence: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam; Vinaytosh Mishra; Muhammad Umer Siddiqui; Jeban Chandir Moses; Sasan Adibi; Lemai Nguyen; Nilmini Wickramasinghe
Journal:  JMIR Diabetes       Date:  2022-06-21

Review 3.  Mobile messaging and smartphone apps for patient communication and engagement in spine surgery.

Authors:  Vadim Goz; William Ryan Spiker; Darrel Brodke
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

4.  Effectiveness of a mobile phone text messaging intervention on dietary behaviour in patients with type 2 diabetes: a post-hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam; Elena S George; Ralph Maddison
Journal:  Mhealth       Date:  2021-01-20

5.  Selecting Evidence-Based Content for Inclusion in Self-Management Apps for Pressure Injuries in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: Participatory Design Study.

Authors:  Maddalena Fiordelli; Claudia Zanini; Julia Amann; Anke Scheel-Sailer; Mirjam Brach; Gerold Stucki; Sara Rubinelli
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 4.773

6.  A mixed-methods study to explore opportunities and challenges with using a mHealth approach to engage men who have sex with men in HIV prevention, treatment and care in Lomé, Togo.

Authors:  Ndola Prata; Karen Weidert; Doumenan Raphaël Soro
Journal:  Mhealth       Date:  2021-07-20

7.  Telemedicine for the Spine Surgeon in the Age of COVID-19: Multicenter Experiences of Feasibility and Implementation Strategies.

Authors:  Daniel Franco; Thiago Montenegro; Glenn A Gonzalez; Kevin Hines; Aria Mahtabfar; Melvin D Helgeson; Rakesh Patel; James Harrop
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-06-03

Review 8.  mHealth Interventions to Address Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Selina Khoo; Najihah Mohbin; Payam Ansari; Mahfoodha Al-Kitani; Andre Matthias Müller
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Motivating patients in cardiac rehabilitation programs: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Helle Spindler; Malene Hollingdal; Jens Refsgaard; Birthe Dinesen
Journal:  Int J Telerehabil       Date:  2021-06-22

10.  New research directions on disparities in obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Pamela L Thornton; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Edward W Gregg; Maria R Araneta; Monica L Baskin; Marshall H Chin; Carlos J Crespo; Mary de Groot; David O Garcia; Debra Haire-Joshu; Michele Heisler; Felicia Hill-Briggs; Joseph A Ladapo; Nangel M Lindberg; Spero M Manson; David G Marrero; Monica E Peek; Alexandra E Shields; Deborah F Tate; Carol M Mangione
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 6.499

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.