Cited by 62Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsICT in Developing Communities

Scoping review and evaluation of SMS/text messaging platforms for mHealth projects or clinical interventions

Open access
Iribarren, Sarah J., Brown, William, Giguere, Rebecca, Stone, Patricia, Schnall, Rebecca, Staggers, Nancy, Carballo-Diéguez, Alex·2017·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Objectives Mobile technology supporting text messaging interventions (TMIs) continues to evolve, presenting challenges for researchers and healthcare professionals who need to choose software solutions to best meet their program needs. The objective of this review was to systematically identify and compare text messaging platforms and to summarize their advantages and disadvantages as described in peer-reviewed literature.Methods A scoping review was conducted using four steps: 1) identify currently available platforms through online searches and in mHealth repositories; 2) expand evaluation criteria of an mHealth mobile messaging toolkit and integrate prior user experiences as researchers; 3) evaluate each platform's functions and features based on the expanded criteria and a vendor survey; and 4) assess the documentation of platform use in the peer-review literature. Platforms meeting inclusion criteria were assessed independently by three reviewers and discussed until consensus was reached. The PRISMA guidelines were followed to report findings.Results Of the 1041 potentially relevant search results, 27 platforms met inclusion criteria. Most were excluded because they were not platforms (e.g., guides, toolkits, reports, or SMS gateways). Of the 27 platforms, only 12 were identified in existing mHealth repositories, 10 from Google searches, while five were found in both. The expanded evaluation criteria included 22 items. Results indicate no uniform presentation of platform features and functions, often making these difficult to discern. Fourteen of the platforms were reported as open source, 10 focused on health care and 16 were tailored to meet needs of low resource settings (not mutually exclusive). Fifteen platforms had do-it-yourself setup (programming not required) while the remainder required coding/programming skills or setups could be built to specification by the vendor. Frequently described features included data security and access to the platform via cloud-based systems. Pay structures and reported targeted end-users varied. Peer-reviewed publications listed only 6 of the 27 platforms across 21 publications. The majority of these articles reported the name of the platform used but did not describe advantages or disadvantages.Conclusions Searching for and comparing mHealth platforms for TMIs remains a challenge. The results of this review can serve as a resource for researchers and healthcare professionals wanting to integrate TMIs into health interventions. Steps to identify, compare and assess advantages and disadvantages are outlined for consideration. Expanded evaluation criteria can be used by future researchers. Continued and more comprehensive platform tools should be integrated into mHealth repositories. Detailed descriptions of platform advantages and disadvantages are needed when mHealth researchers publish findings to expand the body of research on TMI tools for healthcare. Standardized descriptions and features are recommended for vendor sites.

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.2017.01.017

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Dimagi's CommCare is an offline-first, open-source mobile data collection and service delivery platform that helps CHWs in every phase of effective COVID-19 response.

    “Dimagi’s CommCare is an offline-first, open-source mobile data collection and service delivery platform that helps CHWs in every phase of effective COVID-19 response - from screening and contact tracing to patient monitoring and post-care support [10].”

    From Equipping community health workers with digital tools for pandemic response in LMICs (2021) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results (Platform Evaluation Criteria Development; page unavailable) describe CommCare as a mobile tool for community health workers’ electronic data capture and clinic-based data management. They say a project could be developed offline but required connectivity to download it to a phone and upload data; they do not establish that CommCare is open-source or support the claimed COVID-19 response uses. Searches for COVID-19, contact tracing, screening, monitoring, and post-care support found no passage linking those uses to CommCare. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    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

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Iribarren, S. J., Brown, W., Giguere, R., Stone, P., Schnall, R., Staggers, N., & Carballo-Diéguez, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • San Francisco General Hospital (US)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Iribarren, Sarah J.
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
101
Pages
28-40
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2584804976
Cited by
62
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5
FWCI
14.19
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 (R03MH103957, P30MH062246, P30MH043520)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (T32NR014205)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM012355, T15LM007079)
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 › ICT in Developing Communities
Keywords
mobile health, text messaging intervention, platform comparison, open source software, resource-limited settings, data security, cloud systems, health interventions, reporting guidelines
MeSH terms
Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Telemedicine, Cell Phone, Text Messaging, Early Medical Intervention

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