Healthcare workers' informal uses of mobile phones and other mobile devices to support their work: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers sometimes develop their own informal solutions to deliver services. One such solution is to use their personal mobile phones or other mobile devices in ways that are unregulated by their workplace. This can help them carry out their work when their workplace lacks functional formal communication and information systems, but it can also lead to new challenges. OBJECTIVES: To explore the views, experiences, and practices of healthcare workers, managers and other professionals working in healthcare services regarding their informal, innovative uses of mobile devices to support their work. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus on 11 August 2022 for studies published since 2008 in any language. We carried out citation searches and contacted study authors to clarify published information and seek unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with a qualitative component. We included studies that explored healthcare workers' views, experiences, and practices regarding mobile phones and other mobile devices, and that included data about healthcare workers' informal use of these devices for work purposes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using an extraction form designed for this synthesis, assessed methodological limitations using predefined criteria, and used a thematic synthesis approach to synthesise the data. We used the 'street-level bureaucrat' concept to apply a conceptual lens to our findings and prepare a line of argument that links these findings. We used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess our confidence in the review findings and the line-of-argument statements. We collaborated with relevant stakeholders when defining the review scope, interpreting the findings, and developing implications for practice. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 studies in the review, published between 2013 and 2022. The studies were from high-, middle- and low-income countries and covered a range of healthcare settings and healthcare worker cadres. Most described mobile phone use as opposed to other mobile devices, such as tablets. We have moderate to high confidence in the statements in the following line of argument. The healthcare workers in this review, like other 'street-level bureaucrats', face a gap between what is expected of them and the resources available to them. To plug this gap, healthcare workers develop their own strategies, including using their own mobile phones, data and airtime. They also use other personal resources, including their personal time when taking and making calls outside working hours, and their personal networks when contacting others for help and advice. In some settings, healthcare workers' personal phone use, although unregulated, has become a normal part of many work processes. Some healthcare workers therefore experience pressure or expectations from colleagues and managers to use their personal phones. Some also feel driven to use their phones at work and at home because of feelings of obligation towards their patients and colleagues. At best, healthcare workers' use of their personal phones, time and networks helps humanise healthcare. It allows healthcare workers to be more flexible, efficient and responsive to the needs of the patient. It can give patients access to individual healthcare workers rather than generic systems and can help patients keep their sensitive information out of the formal system. It also allows healthcare workers to communicate with each other in more personalised, socially appropriate ways than formal systems allow. All of this can strengthen healthcare workers' relationships with community members and colleagues. However, these informal approaches can also replicate existing social hierarchies and deepen existing inequities among healthcare workers. Personal phone use costs healthcare workers money. This is a particular problem for lower-level healthcare workers and healthcare workers in low-income settings as they are likely to be paid less and may have less access to work phones or compensation. Out-of-hours use may also be more of a burden for lower-level healthcare workers, as they may find it harder to ignore calls when they are at home. Healthcare workers with poor access to electricity and the internet are less able to use informal mobile phone solutions, while healthcare workers who lack skills and training in how to appraise unendorsed online information are likely to struggle to identify trustworthy information. Informal digital channels can help healthcare workers expand their networks. But healthcare workers who rely on personal networks to seek help and advice are at a disadvantage if these networks are weak. Healthcare workers' use of their personal resources can also lead to problems for patients and can benefit some patients more than others. For instance, when healthcare workers store and share patient information on their personal phones, the confidentiality of this information may be broken. In addition, healthcare workers may decide to use their personal resources on some types of patients, but not others. Healthcare workers sometimes describe using their personal phones and their personal time and networks to help patients and clients whom they assess as being particularly in need. These decisions are likely to reflect their own values and ideas, for instance about social equity and patient 'worthiness'. But these may not necessarily reflect the goals, ideals and regulations of the formal healthcare system. Finally, informal mobile phone use plugs gaps in the system but can also weaken the system. The storing and sharing of information on personal phones and through informal channels can represent a 'shadow IT' (information technology) system where information about patient flow, logistics, etc., is not recorded in the formal system. Healthcare workers may also be more distracted at work, for instance, by calls from colleagues and family members or by social media use. Such challenges may be particularly difficult for weak healthcare systems. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: By finding their own informal solutions to workplace challenges, healthcare workers can be more efficient and more responsive to the needs of patients, colleagues and themselves. But these solutions also have several drawbacks. Efforts to strengthen formal health systems should consider how to retain the benefits of informal solutions and reduce their negative effects.

A conceptual framework for measuring community health workforce performance within primary health care systems.

BACKGROUND: With the 40th anniversary of the Declaration of Alma-Ata, a global effort is underway to re-focus on strengthening primary health care systems, with emphasis on leveraging community health workers (CHWs) towards the goal of achieving universal health coverage for all. Institutionalizing effective, sustainable community health systems is currently limited by a lack of standard metrics for measuring CHW performance and the systems they work within. Developed through iterative consultations, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and in partnership with USAID and UNICEF, this paper details a framework, list of indicators, and measurement considerations for monitoring CHW performance in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: A review of peer-reviewed articles, reports, and global data collection tools was conducted to identify key measurement domains in monitoring CHW performance. Three consultations were successively convened with global stakeholders, community health implementers, advocates, measurement experts, and Ministry of Health representatives using a modified Delphi approach to build consensus on priority indicators. During this process, a structured, web-based survey was administered to identify the importance and value of specific measurement domains, sub-domains, and indicators determined through the literature reviews and initial stakeholder consultations. Indicators with more than 75% support from participants were further refined with expert qualitative input. RESULTS: Twenty-one sub-domains for measurement were identified including measurement of incentives for CHWs, supervision and performance appraisal, data use, data reporting, service delivery, quality of services, CHW absenteeism and attrition, community use of services, experience of services, referral/counter-referral, credibility/trust, and programmatic costs. Forty-six indicators were agreed upon to measure the sub-domains. In the absence of complete population enumeration and digitized health information systems, the quality of metrics to monitor CHW programs is limited. CONCLUSIONS: Better data collection approaches at the community level are needed to strengthen management of CHW programs and community health systems. The proposed list of metrics balances exhaustive and pragmatic measurement of CHW performance within primary healthcare systems. Adoption of the proposed framework and associated indicators by CHW program implementors may improve programmatic effectiveness, strengthen their accountability to national community health systems, drive programmatic quality improvement, and plausibly improve the impact of these programs.

Stakeholder views on the incorporation of traditional birth attendants into the formal health systems of low-and middle-income countries: a qualitative analysis of the HIFA2015 and CHILD2015 email discussion forums.

BACKGROUND: Health workforce shortages are key obstacles to the achievement of the health-related Millennium Development Goals. Task shifting is seen as a way to improve access to pregnancy and childbirth care. However, the role of traditional birth attendants (TBAs) within task shifting initiatives remains contested. The objective of this study was to explore stakeholder views and justifications regarding the incorporation of TBAs into formal health systems. METHODS: Data were drawn from messages submitted to the HIFA2015 and CHILD2015 email discussion forums. The forums focus on the healthcare information needs of frontline health workers and citizens in low - and middle-income countries, and how these needs can be met, and also include discussion of diverse aspects of health systems. Messages about TBAs submitted between 2007-2011 were analysed thematically. RESULTS: We identified 658 messages about TBAs from a total of 193 participants. Most participants supported the incorporation of trained TBAs into primary care systems to some degree, although their justifications for doing so varied. Participant viewpoints were influenced by the degree to which TBA involvement was seen as a long-term or short-term solution and by the tasks undertaken by TBAs. CONCLUSIONS: Many forum members indicated that they were supportive of trained TBAs being involved in the provision of pregnancy care. Members noted that TBAs were already frequently used by women and that alternative options were lacking. However, a substantial minority regarded doing so as a threat to the quality and equity of healthcare. The extent of TBA involvement needs to be context-specific and should be based on evidence on effectiveness as well as evidence on need, acceptability and feasibility.

Towards a collective understanding of the information needs of health care providers in low-income countries, and how to meet them.

Poor knowledge among health care providers (including health workers and citizens) leads to poor health outcomes. This article discusses current linear research-to-practice paradigms and argues that these approaches are not meeting the needs of health care providers in low- and middle-income countries. It suggests a broader, needs-led approach. This approach must look beyond perceived needs and identify actual needs in relation to knowledge and practice, including learning needs and point-of-use needs. The article argues that systems thinking is required. The availability of reliable, appropriate health care information for providers is dependent on the integrity of the global health care knowledge system, which embraces health professionals, policymakers, researchers, publishers, librarians, information specialists, and others. Three intrinsic weaknesses of the system need to be addressed: communication among stakeholders; an evolving, collective understanding of the system's components and how they interrelate; and effective advocacy to raise awareness of this issue and the need for funders and governments to support collective efforts to strengthen the knowledge system. This can be done at the country level but must be accompanied by an international effort including knowledge networks such as Healthcare Information for All by 2015 involving diverse individuals and organizations.

Themes Surrounding COVID-19 and Its Infodemic: Qualitative Analysis of the COVID-19 Discussion on the Multidisciplinary Healthcare Information for All Health Forum.

Background: Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) is a multidisciplinary global campaign consisting of more than 20,000 members worldwide committed to improving the availability and use of health care information in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). During the COVID-19 pandemic, online HIFA forums saw a tremendous amount of discussion regarding the lack of information about COVID-19, the spread of misinformation, and the pandemic's impact on different communities. Objective: This study aims to analyze the themes and perspectives shared in the COVID-19 discussion on English HIFA forums. Methods: Over a period of 8 months, a qualitative thematic content analysis of the COVID-19 discussion on English HIFA forums was conducted. In total, 865 posts between January 24 and October 31, 2020, from 246 unique study participants were included and analyzed. Results: In total, 6 major themes were identified: infodemic, health system, digital health literacy, economic consequences, marginalized peoples, and mental health. The geographical distribution of study participants involved in the discussion spanned across 46 different countries in every continent except Antarctica. Study participants' professions included public health workers, health care providers, and researchers, among others. Study participants' affiliation included nongovernment organizations (NGOs), commercial organizations, academic institutions, the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), and others. Conclusions: The themes that emerged from this analysis highlight personal recounts, reflections, suggestions, and evidence around addressing COVID-19 related misinformation and might also help to understand the timeline of information evolution, focus, and needs surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.

Universal access to essential health information: accelerating progress towards universal health coverage and other SDG health targets.

The information that people need to protect and manage their own health and the health of those for whom they are responsible is a fundamental element of an effective people-centred healthcare system. Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) requires universal access to essential health information. While it was recently recognised by the World Medical Association, universal access to essential health information is not yet reflected in official monitoring of progress on UHC for the sustainable development goals (SDGs). In this paper, we outline key features that characterise universal access to essential health information and indicate how it is increasingly achievable. We highlight the growing evidence of the impact of wider access to practical and actionable information on health for the public, carers and frontline health workers and provide illustrative, evidence-based, examples of how increasing access to essential health information can accelerate the achievement of UHC and other health targets of the SDGs. The paper ends with an assessment of reasons why universal access to essential health information has not yet been achieved, and an associated call to action to key stakeholders-such as governments, multilaterals, funding bodies, policy-makers, health professionals and knowledge intermediaries-to explicitly recognise the foundational role of universal access to essential health information for achieving UHC and the rest of the health SDGs, to include it in the relevant SDG target and associated monitoring indicators, and to incorporate actions in their own policies and programmes to promote and enable this access.

How primary healthcare workers obtain information during consultations to aid safe prescribing in low-income and lower middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Background: We systematically reviewed the evidence on how primary healthcare workers obtain information during consultations to support decision-making for prescribing in low and lower middle-income countries. Methods: We searched electronic databases, consulted the Healthcare Information For All network, hand searched reference lists, ran citation searches of included studies and emailed authors of identified papers. Two reviewers extracted data and appraised quality with relevant tools. Results: Of 60 497 records found, 23 studies met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies were observational and nine were interventional. Frequently mentioned sources of information were books, leaflets, guidelines, aids and the internet. These sources were sometimes out of date and health workers reported being confused which to use. Internet access varied and even when it was available, use was limited by technical issues. Of the five electronic tools that were assessed, four had positive outcomes. Tools assisted prescribers with medicine selection and dosage calculations, which increased prescribing accuracy. The quality of reporting varied but was overall low. Discussion: Studies indicated a lack of up-to-date and relevant medicine information in low and lower middle-income settings. Internet-based sources appeared to be useful when it is possible to download content for offline use and to update when there is internet access. Electronic tools showed promise, but their accuracy needs to be validated and they should focus on giving actionable advice to guide prescribers. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018091088.

Information needs of health care workers in developing countries: a literature review with a focus on Africa.

Health care workers in developing countries continue to lack access to basic, practical information to enable them to deliver safe, effective care. This paper provides the first phase of a broader literature review of the information and learning needs of health care providers in developing countries. A Medline search revealed 1762 papers, of which 149 were identified as potentially relevant to the review. Thirty-five of these were found to be highly relevant. Eight of the 35 studies looked at information needs as perceived by health workers, patients and family/community members; 14 studies assessed the knowledge of health workers; and 8 looked at health care practice. The studies suggest a gross lack of knowledge about the basics on how to diagnose and manage common diseases, going right across the health workforce and often associated with suboptimal, ineffective and dangerous health care practices. If this level of knowledge and practice is representative, as it appears to be, it indicates that modern medicine, even at a basic level, has largely failed the majority of the world's population. The information and learning needs of family caregivers and primary and district health workers have been ignored for too long. Improving the availability and use of relevant, reliable health care information has enormous potential to radically improve health care worldwide.

How do primary healthcare workers in low-income and middle-income countries obtain information during consultations to aid safe prescribing? A systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is a wide variety in prescribing by primary healthcare workers in low-income and middle-income countries. While there is much information available, both online and offline, there is variation in quality and relevance to different settings. Acting on incorrect or out-of-date information can lead to inappropriate prescribing and impact on patient safety. The aim of this review is to systematically review the evidence on how primary healthcare workers obtain information during consultations to prescribe safely and appropriately. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify relevant articles by searching electronic databases: Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CABI Global Health (Ovid), WHO global health library, POPLINE, Africa-Wide Information (Ebsco), Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (Ebsco), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Also, the Health Information For All network will be consulted and evidence databases (TRIP database, Epistemonikos, PDQ Evidence) will be searched. We will hand-search reference lists, run citation searches of included studies and email authors of identified papers. Observational and intervention studies involving primary healthcare workers in low-income and middle-income countries who prescribe and/or dispense medication will be included. The primary outcome is the proportion of healthcare workers obtaining information relevant to consultations from different sources. Secondary outcomes are the change in healthcare provider and patient knowledge or behaviour, adverse outcomes and use of resources. We will exclude studies focusing on secondary care. We anticipate a limited scope for meta-analysis and will provide a narrative overview of findings and tabular summaries of extracted data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required. Findings will be disseminated through the Healthcare Information For All network. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018091088.

Information technology for health in developing countries.

Poverty has deepened the crisis in health-care delivery in developing countries, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, which is a region facing a disease burden that is unmatched in the world. Whether access to proven and powerful information and communication technologies (ICTs) can improve health indicators is an ongoing debate. However, this brief review shows that in the last decade there has been significant growth in Internet access in urban areas; health-care workers now use it for communication, access to relevant health-care information, and international collaboration. The central message learned during this period about the application of ICTs is that infrastructural and cultural contexts vary and require different models and approaches. Thus, to harness the full potential of ICTs to the benefit of health systems, health workers, and patients will demand an intricate mix of old and new technologies.

Can we achieve health information for all by 2015?

Universal access to information for health professionals is a prerequisite for meeting the Millennium Development Goals and achieving Health for All. However, despite the promises of the information revolution, and some successful initiatives, there is little if any evidence that the majority of health professionals in the developing world are any better informed than they were 10 years ago. Lack of access to information remains a major barrier to knowledge-based health care in developing countries. The development of reliable, relevant, usable information can be represented as a system that requires cooperation among a wide range of professionals including health-care providers, policy makers, researchers, publishers, information professionals, indexers, and systematic reviewers. The system is not working because it is poorly understood, unmanaged, and under-resourced. This Public Health article proposes that WHO takes the lead in championing the goal of "Universal access to essential health-care information by 2015" or "Health Information for All". Strategies for achieving universal access include funding for research into barriers to use of information, evaluation and replication of successful initiatives, support for interdisciplinary networks, information cycles, and communities of practice, and the formation of national policies on health information.