4.4 Article

A survey of mobile phone use in the provision of palliative care services in the African region and priorities for future development

期刊

JOURNAL OF TELEMEDICINE AND TELECARE
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 230-240

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1357633X18767187

关键词

Non-communicable diseases; palliative care; Africa; technology; mHealth

资金

  1. University of Leeds Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Palliative care (PC) services in the African region need to adapt to manage rising numbers of patients with cancer or other life-limiting conditions. Mobile phone use in healthcare delivery (mHealth) is at an early stage of development for PC, but may provide new approaches to supporting patients regionally, particularly those with non-communicable diseases. Methods We conducted an online survey of 51 PC providers across 21 countries in the African region to identify: (i) current mHealth use in PC service delivery; (ii) potential barriers to mHealth use; and (iii) provider priorities for research development. Results mHealth approaches were reported across 71.4% of services in which respondents were based. Barriers to mHealth research include patients not having access to phones, mobile network access, and limited access to expertise and hardware required for mHealth. Research priorities were identified which included exploring ways of incorporating mHealth into patient care and ensuring access and relevance of mHealth for patients and health professionals. Discussion mHealth approaches are present across PC services in the African region, but so too are barriers to their use. Further work is required to explore how existing mHealth activities might be further developed and aligned with priority areas for PC development. Crucially, user engagement that seeks to understand the preferences and priorities of patients with PC needs, their caregivers, and those involved in the provision of PC should remain central to these efforts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据