Decision-support tools via mobile devices to improve quality of care in primary healthcare settings.
Smisha Agarwal,Claire Glenton,Tigest Tamrat,Nicholas Henschke,Nicola Maayan,Marita S Fønhus,Garrett L Mehl,Simon Lewin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012944.pub2
IF: 8.4
2021-07-29
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:The ubiquity of mobile devices has made it possible for clinical decision‐support systems (CDSS) to become available to healthcare providers on handheld devices at the point‐of‐care, including in low‐ and middle‐income countries. The use of CDSS by providers can potentially improve adherence to treatment protocols and patient outcomes. However, the evidence on the effect of the use of CDSS on mobile devices needs to be synthesized. This review was carried out to support a World Health Organization (WHO) guideline that aimed to inform investments on the use of decision‐support tools on digital devices to strengthen primary healthcare. To assess the effects of digital clinical decision‐support systems (CDSS) accessible via mobile devices by primary healthcare providers in the context of primary care settings. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Index Medicus, POPLINE, and two trial registries from 1 January 2000 to 9 October 2020. We conducted a grey literature search using mHealthevidence.org and issued a call for papers through popular digital health communities of practice. Finally, we conducted citation searches of included studies. Study design: we included randomized trials, including full‐text studies, conference abstracts, and unpublished data irrespective of publication status or language of publication. Types of participants: we included studies of all cadres of healthcare providers, including lay health workers and other individuals (administrative, managerial, and supervisory staff) involved in the delivery of primary healthcare services using clinical decision‐support tools; and studies of clients or patients receiving care from primary healthcare providers using digital decision‐support tools. Types of interventions: we included studies comparing digital CDSS accessible via mobile devices with non‐digital CDSS or no intervention, in the context of primary care. CDSS could include clinical protocols, checklists, and other job‐aids which supported risk prioritization of patients. Mobile devices included mobile phones of any type (but not analogue landline telephones), as well as tablets, personal digital assistants, and smartphones. We excluded studies where digital CDSS were used on laptops or integrated with electronic medical records or other types of longitudinal tracking of clients. A machine learning classifier that gave each record a probability score of being a randomized trial screened all search results. Two review authors screened titles and abstracts of studies with more than 10% probability of being a randomized trial, and one review author screened those with less than 10% probability of being a randomized trial. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the most important outcomes. Eight randomized trials across varying healthcare contexts in the USA,. India, China, Guatemala, Ghana, and Kenya, met our inclusion criteria. A range of healthcare providers (facility and community‐based, formally trained, and lay workers) used digital CDSS. Care was provided for the management of specific conditions such as cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal risk assessment, and maternal and child health. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, and we often downgraded evidence for risk of bias and imprecision. We are uncertain of the effect of this intervention on providers' adherence to recommended practice due to the very low certainty evidence (2 studies, 185 participants). The effect of the intervention on patients' and clients' health behaviours such as smoking and treatment adherence is mixed, with substantial variation across outcomes for similar types of behaviour (2 studies, 2262 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference to smoking rates among people at risk of cardiovascular disease but probably increases other types of desired behaviour among patients, such as adherence to treatment. The effect of the intervention on patients'/clients' health status and well‐being is also mixed (5 studies, 69,767 participants). It probably makes little or no difference to some types of health outcomes, but we are uncertain about other health outcomes, including maternal and neonatal deaths, due to very low‐certainty evidence. The intervention may slightly improve patient or client acceptability and satisfaction (1 study, 187 participants). We found no studies that reported the time between the presentation of an illness and appropriate management, provider acceptability or satisfaction, resource use, or unintended consequences. We are uncertain about the effectiveness of mobile phone‐based decision‐support tools on several outcomes, including adherence to recommended practice. None of the studies had a quality of care framework and f -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal