Cited by 639Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Guidelines for reporting of health interventions using mobile phones: mobile health (mHealth) evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist

Open access
Agarwal, Smisha, LeFevre, Amnesty E, Lee, Jaime, L’Engle, Kelly, Mehl, Garrett, Sinha, Chaitali, Labrique, Alain·2016·BMJ

Abstract

To improve the completeness of reporting of mobile health (mHealth) interventions, the WHO mHealth Technical Evidence Review Group developed the mHealth evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist. The development process for mERA consisted of convening an expert group to recommend an appropriate approach, convening a global expert review panel for checklist development, and pilot testing the checklist. The guiding principle for the development of these criteria was to identify a minimum set of information needed to define what the mHealth intervention is (content), where it is being implemented (context), and how it was implemented (technical features), to support replication of the intervention. This paper presents the resulting 16 item checklist and a detailed explanation and elaboration for each item, with illustrative reporting examples. Through widespread adoption, we expect that the use of these guidelines will standardise the quality of mHealth evidence reporting, and indirectly improve the quality of mHealth evidence.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.i1174

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • mHealth has the potential to extend the scope, accessibility, and quality of health services and increase workforce capacity.

    “In pursuit of universal health coverage, mobile health has the potential to extend the scope, accessibility and quality of health services, to increase the accountability mechanisms, to expand the population base accessing health services, and to increase capacity of the healthcare workforce”

    From Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis (2020) · cites this paper as Agarwal 2016

    The Abstract (page unavailable) says mobile technologies may improve access to and use of health services, particularly for underserved populations, and that mHealth aims to improve health-system efficiency and outcomes. It does not specifically support the attributed potential to extend the scope or quality of services, strengthen accountability mechanisms, or increase healthcare workforce capacity. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mobile health has the potential to extend the scope, accessibility and quality of health services, increase accountability mechanisms, expand the population base accessing health services, and increase capacity of the healthcare workforce.

    “In pursuit of universal health coverage, mobile health has the potential to extend the scope, accessibility and quality of health services, to increase the accountability mechanisms, to expand the population base accessing health services, and to increase capacity of the healthcare workforce (Agarwal 2016; Labrique 2013a; Labrique 2013b; Mehl 2014).”

    From Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis (2020) · cites this paper as Agarwal 2016

    The Abstract (page not provided) says mobile technologies have the potential to improve access to and use of health services, particularly among underserved populations, and that mHealth aims to improve health-system efficiency. That supports the access and reach portions of the claim, but the passages do not establish the claimed potential to increase accountability mechanisms or healthcare workforce capacity, or specifically to improve service quality. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This manuscript complies with the mHealth evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist.

    “This manuscript complies with the mHealth evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist on reporting of health interventions using mobile technologies [60].”
  • The protocol followed the SPIRIT 2013, CONSORT 2010, TIDieR, and mERA reporting guidelines.

    “This protocol followed the guidelines of SPIRIT 2013 (Chan et al., 2013), CONSORT 2010 (the CONSORT Group et al., 2010), the TIDieR checklist (Hoffmann et al., 2014), and the mHealth Evidence Reporting and Assessment (mERA) Checklist (Agarwal et al., 2016) (see Appendix A).”
  • There is a gap between expected and actual benefits of mHealth and a lack of an evidence base regarding the actual impact of mHealth initiatives.

    “Despite such expectations, it has become common within scholarly literature to lament the gap between expected and actual benefits and the lack of an evidence base regarding the actual impact of mHealth initiatives [3, 6, 28].”

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: 4

  1. [5]5. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489. 470347.AD. · DOI
  2. [20]20. Stockwell MS, Kharbanda EO, Martinez RA, Vargas CY, Vawdrey DK, Camargo S. Effect of a text messaging intervention on influenza vaccination in an urban, low-income pediatric and adolescent population: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2012;307:1702-8. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.502. · DOI
  3. [30]30. Tomlinson M, Solomon W, Singh Y, et al. The use of mobile phones as a data collection tool: a report from a household survey in South Africa. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009;9:51. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-9-51. · DOI · Paper page
  4. [33]33. © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2016 Web appendix 1: mERA Methodology Criteria Web appendix 2: Results from mERA core checklist application to three health areas on 23 July 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://www.bmj.com/ BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.i1174 on 17 March 2016. Downloaded from

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agarwal, S., LeFevre, A. E., Lee, J., L’Engle, K., Mehl, G., Sinha, C., & Labrique, A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Family Health International 360 (US)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • International Development Research Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Labrique, Alain
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-03-17
Volume
352
Pages
i1174
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2300936160
Cited by
639
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 1
FWCI
114.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • UNICEF
  • United Nations Foundation
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mobile health, mobile health intervention, reporting guidelines, reporting checklist, intervention definition, intervention context, technical features, intervention replication, quality of evidence, health interventions
MeSH terms
Health Planning Guidelines, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Program Development, Telemedicine, Cell Phone, Checklist, 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