Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Analysis of the Use of Digital Health Technologies in Primary Health Care in the Sub-Saharan African Region: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies (DHTs) have become increasingly commonplace as a means of delivering primary care. While DHTs have been postulated to reduce inequalities, increase access, and strengthen health systems, how the implementation of DHTs has been realized in the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) health care environment remains inadequately explored. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to capture the multidisciplinary experiences of primary care professionals using DHTs to explore the strengths and weaknesses, as well as opportunities and threats, regarding the implementation and use of DHTs in SSA primary care settings. METHODS: A combination of qualitative approaches was adopted (ie, focus groups and semistructured interviews). Participants were recruited through the African Forum for Primary Care and researchers' contact networks using convenience sampling and included if having experience with digital technologies in primary health care in SSA. Focus and interviews were conducted, respectively, in November 2021 and January-March 2022. Topic guides were used to cover relevant topics in the interviews, using the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats framework. Transcripts were compiled verbatim and systematically reviewed by 2 independent reviewers using framework analysis to identify emerging themes. The COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist was used to ensure the study met the recommended standards of qualitative data reporting. RESULTS: A total of 33 participants participated in the study (n=13 and n=23 in the interviews and in focus groups, respectively; n=3 participants participated in both). The strengths of using DHTs ranged from improving access to care, supporting the continuity of care, and increasing care satisfaction and trust to greater collaboration, enabling safer decision-making, and hastening progress toward universal health coverage. Weaknesses included poor digital literacy, health inequalities, lack of human resources, inadequate training, lack of basic infrastructure and equipment, and poor coordination when implementing DHTs. DHTs were perceived as an opportunity to improve patient digital literacy, increase equity, promote more patient-centric design in upcoming DHTs, streamline expenditure, and provide a means to learn international best practices. Threats identified include the lack of buy-in from both patients and providers, insufficient human resources and local capacity, inadequate governmental support, overly restrictive regulations, and a lack of focus on cybersecurity and data protection. CONCLUSIONS: The research highlights the complex challenges of implementing DHTs in the SSA context as a fast-moving health delivery modality, as well as the need for multistakeholder involvement. Future research should explore the nuances of these findings across different technologies and settings in the SSA region and implications on health and health care equity, capitalizing on mixed-methods research, including the use of real-world quantitative data to understand patient health needs. The promise of digital health will only be realized when informed by studies that incorporate patient perspective at every stage of the research cycle.

Exploring the ideas of young healthcare professionals from selected countries regarding rural proofing.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, most countries struggle to meet the health needs of rural communities. This has resulted in rural areas performing poorly when compared to urban areas in terms of a range of health indicators. There have been few coherent or systematic strategies that target rural communities and address their needs within the rural context. Rural proofing, defined as the systematic application of a rural lens across policies and guidelines to ensure that they speak to these health needs, seeks to address this gap. The healthcare professionals (HCPs) who will be called upon to advocate for and lead the implementation of rural proofing efforts are those currently in training or early career stages. We thus sought to understand the perspectives of young HCPs regarding the concept of rural proofing. METHODS: The study adopted an interpretivist paradigm. Data were collected using semi-structured individual interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Selected HCPs who are in leadership in Rural Seeds, a movement for young HCPs, participated in the study. FGDs in the form of Rural Cafés were led by some Rural Seeds leaders who participated in the interviews and who showed interest in organising the discussions. Eleven exploratory interviews and six FGDs were conducted using Zoom. HCPs were from Australia, Europe, Africa, North America, South America, and Asia. Interviews and FGDs were conducted in English, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was then undertaken. RESULTS: Participants perceived the state of rural healthcare globally to be problematic. Access to care was seen as the most significant issue in rural health care, associated with the challenges of lack of equity in access, and limited funding and support for healthcare professionals and their career pathways. Despite varying understanding of the concept, rural proofing was seen to be of great value in improving rural health care. A number of ideas for applying rural proofing, with examples, were proposed from their perspectives as frontline healthcare providers. They particularly recognised the importance of addressing the local needs of rural communities and the needs of present and future HCPs. Implementation of rural proofing was seen to require the involvement of key stakeholders from a range of sectors at multiple levels. CONCLUSION: Given the state of rural health, young rural HCPs suggest that rural proofing strategies are needed as they have the potential to bring about equity in the delivery of health care in rural and remote communities. These strategies will assist in creating a more positive future for rural health care worldwide and motivate young HCPs to become involved in rural health care, as well as to increase their motivation to take an interest in health policy development. These strategies need to be applied at multiple levels, from national government to local contexts. It is also seen to be critically important to involve multiple levels of stakeholders, from politicians to healthcare providers and community members, in the process of rural proofing.