Cited by 111Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Learning in Education

H_pe for mHealth: More “y” or “o” on the horizon?

Open access
Labrique, Alain, Vasudevan, Lavanya, Chang, Larry William, Mehl, Garrett·2013·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Objective Efforts in the domain of mobile health, or mHealth, have been criticized for the unfettered proliferation of pilots and a lack of a rigorous evidence base to support these strategies. In this letter, we present the response of a group of researchers in the mHealth community to the recent calls for evidence issued by global health and funding agencies. We support our conclusions through a summary of the numerous ongoing mHealth studies listed in the US federal clinical trial registry. Methods We conducted a search on the US federal clinicaltrials.gov database using the keywords “mHealth”, “mobile” or “cell AND phone” to obtain 1678 results of studies. We manually inspected each result to check if it fit the purview of an mHealth study. Studies that were terminated or withdrawn prior to submission were excluded. Results We identified 215 unique mHealth studies that were registered in the clinicaltrials.gov database, of which 8.4% (n = 18) were observational in nature while the remaining 91.6% (n = 197) were interventional. Of the 215 studies, 81.8% (n = 176) studies used a classical randomized trial design and 40 new studies were added to the database between May and November 2012 alone. Based on these results, we posit that the field is entering a new ‘era’ where a body of rigorous evaluation of mHealth strategies is rapidly accumulating. Conclusions The transition into an era of evidence-based mHealth supports our position that innovation in this domain can be evaluated with the same rigor as other public health strategies, attenuating some of the hype previously associated with mHealth.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.11.016

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Equipping frontline health workers with mobile phone applications may enhance the delivery of maternal, neonatal, and child health services as well as the accuracy of data capture and recording.

    “Equipping frontline health workers with mobile phone applications may enhance the delivery of maternal, neonatal, and child health services as well as the accuracy of data capture and recording [16, 26, 35, 36].”

    From Qualitative Assessment of the Feasibility, Usability, and Acceptability of a Mobile Client Data App for Community-Based Maternal, Neonatal, and Child Care in Rural Ghana (2016) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Conclusions (page not provided) say mHealth may improve health-service delivery, the timeliness of data collection, and documentation of client interactions. They do not specifically address frontline health workers delivering maternal, neonatal, and child health services, or improved accuracy of data capture and recording. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, mHealth – Workshop on “mHealth Evidence”. <http://obssr.od.nih.gov/scientific_areas/methodology/mhealth/mhealth-workshop.aspx>, 2011 (accessed 02.06.12).
  2. Horvath, 2012, Mobile phone text messaging to help patients with HIV infection take their antiretroviral medications every day, Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., CD009756

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Labrique, A., Vasudevan, L., Chang, L. W., & Mehl, G.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
Corresponding author
Labrique, Alain
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-05
Volume
82
Issue
5
Pages
467-469
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025562154
Cited by
111
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6
FWCI
14.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH086338)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
Keywords
mobile health, evidence-based medicine, clinical trial registries, ClinicalTrials.gov, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, research evaluation, evidence base
MeSH terms
Humans, Quality of Health Care, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine, Biomedical Technology, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review