Cited by 71Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsICT in Developing CommunitiesMobile Learning in Education

Scoping review assessing the evidence used to support the adoption of mobile health (mHealth) technologies for the education and training of community health workers (CHWs) in low-income and middle-income countries

Open access
Winters, Niall, Langer, Laurenz, Geniets, Anne·2018·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: Undertake a systematic scoping review to determine how a research evidence base, in the form of existing systematic reviews in the field of mobile health (mHealth), constitutes education and training for community health workers (CHWs) who use mobile technologies in everyday work. The review was informed by the following research questions: does educational theory inform the design of the education and training component of mHealth interventions? How is education and training with mobile technology by CHWs in low-income and middle-income countries categorised by existing systematic reviews? What is the basis for this categorisation? Setting: The review explored the literature from 2000 to 2017 to investigate how mHealth interventions have been positioned within the available evidence base in relation to their use of formal theories of learning. Results: The scoping review found 24 primary studies that were categorised by 16 systematic reviews as supporting CHWs’ education and training using mobile technologies. However, when formal theories of learning from educational research were used to recategorise these 24 primary studies, only four could be coded as such. This identifies a problem with how CHWs’ education and training using mobile technologies is understood and categorised within the existing evidence base. This is because there is no agreed on, theoretically informed understanding of what counts as learning. Conclusion: The claims made by mHealth researchers and practitioners regarding the learning benefits of mobile technology are not based on research results that are underpinned by formal theories of learning. mHealth suffers from a reductionist view of learning that underestimates the complexities of the relationship between pedagogy and technology. This has resulted in miscategorisations of what constitutes CHWs’ education and training within the existing evidence base. This can be overcome by informed collaboration between the health and education communities.

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/bmjopen-2017-019827

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Research on digital tools for community health workers has largely addressed continuing education, data collection, decision support, emergency referrals, and work planning, not clinical skill development.

    “Much of the literature on digital technology, including mobile interventions and text messaging, has primarily been in the context of providing continuing educational support and training to community health workers on data collection and reporting, decision support, emergency referrals and work planning through alerts and reminders, as opposed to developing clinical skills (Winters et al., 2018;”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winters, N., Langer, L., & Geniets, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Johannesburg (ZA)
Corresponding author
Winters, Niall
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-07
Volume
8
Issue
7
Pages
e019827
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2887739211
Cited by
71
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › ICT in Developing Communities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
Keywords
mobile health, community health workers, learning theory, evidence base, low- and middle-income countries, technology and pedagogy, health and education collaboration
MeSH terms
Community Health Workers, Community Health Services, Developing Countries, Humans, Telemedicine, Biomedical Technology

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