Cited by 27Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsEvaluation and Performance AssessmentICT in Developing Communities

Unmet Need: Improving mHealth Evaluation Rigor to Build the Evidence Base

Mookherji, Sangeeta, Mehl, Garrett, Kaonga, Nadi, Mechael, Patricia·2015·Journal of Health Communication

Abstract

mHealth-the use of mobile technologies for health-is a growing element of health system activity globally, but evaluation of those activities remains quite scant, and remains an important knowledge gap for advancing mHealth activities. In 2010, the World Health Organization and Columbia University implemented a small-scale survey to generate preliminary data on evaluation activities used by mHealth initiatives. The authors describe self-reported data from 69 projects in 29 countries. The majority (74%) reported some sort of evaluation activity, primarily nonexperimental in design (62%). The authors developed a 6-point scale of evaluation rigor comprising information on use of comparison groups, sample size calculation, data collection timing, and randomization. The mean score was low (2.4); half (47%) were conducting evaluations with a minimum threshold (4+) of rigor, indicating use of a comparison group, while less than 20% had randomized the mHealth intervention. The authors were unable to assess whether the rigor score was appropriate for the type of mHealth activity being evaluated. What was clear was that although most data came from mHealth projects pilots aimed for scale-up, few had designed evaluations that would support crucial decisions on whether to scale up and how. Whether the mHealth activity is a strategy to improve health or a tool for achieving intermediate outcomes that should lead to better health, mHealth evaluations must be improved to generate robust evidence for cost-effectiveness assessment and to allow for accurate identification of the contribution of mHealth initiatives to health systems strengthening and the impact on actual health outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018624

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mookherji, S., Mehl, G., Kaonga, N., & Mechael, P.
Affiliations
  • George Washington University (US)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Mookherji, Sangeeta
Venue
Journal of Health Communication
Published
2015-06-04
Volume
20
Issue
10
Pages
1224-1229
ISSN
  • 1081-0730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0415
OpenAlex
W2167049058
Cited by
27
References
15
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
FWCI
4.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Health Communication (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
World Health Organization
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › ICT in Developing Communities
Keywords
mobile health, evaluation rigor, randomized controlled trials, comparison groups, sample size determination, scale-up, evidence base, health system strengthening, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Health Services Needs and Demand, Health Services Research, Humans, Global Health, Telemedicine, Health Care Surveys, Evidence-Based Practice

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