Cited by 7Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsGlobal Maternal and Child HealthICT in Developing Communities

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Effectiveness of Smartphone-Based Community Case Management on the Urgent Referral, Reconsultation, and Hospitalization of Children Aged Under 5 Years in Malawi: Cluster-Randomized, Stepped-Wedge Trial

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Integrated community case management (CCM) has led to reductions in child mortality in Malawi resulting from illnesses such as malaria, pneumonia, and diarrhea. However, adherence to CCM guidelines is often poor, potentially leading to inappropriate clinical decisions and poor outcomes. We determined the impact of an e-CCM app on the referral, reconsultation, and hospitalization rates of children presenting to village clinics in Malawi. Objective: We determined the impact of an electronic version of a smartphone-based CCM (e-CCM) app on the referral, reconsultation, and hospitalization rates of children presenting to village clinics in Malawi. Methods: We used a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial to compare paper-based CCM (control) with and without the use of an e-CCM app on smartphones from November 2016 to February 2017. A total of 102 village clinics from 2 districts in northern Malawi were assigned to 1 of 6 clusters, which were randomized on the sequencing of the crossover from the control phase to the intervention phase as well as the duration of exposure in each phase. Children aged ≥2 months to <5 years who presented with acute illness were enrolled consecutively by health surveillance assistants. The primary outcome of urgent referrals to higher-level facilities was evaluated by using multilevel mixed effects models. A logistic regression model with the random effects of the cluster and the fixed effects for each step was fitted. The adjustment for potential confounders included baseline factors, such as patient age, sex, and the geographical location of the village clinics. Calendar time was adjusted for in the analysis. Results: A total of 6965 children were recruited—49.11% (3421/6965) in the control phase and 50.88% (3544/6965) in the intervention phase. After adjusting for calendar time, children in the intervention phase were more likely to be urgently referred to a higher-level health facility than children in the control phase (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% CI 1.27-3.23; P=.003). Overall, children in the intervention arm had lower odds of attending a repeat health surveillance assistant consultation (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.59; P<.001) or being admitted to a hospital (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90; P=.002), but after adjusting for time, these differences were not significant (P=.07 for consultation; P=.30 for hospital admission). Conclusions: The addition of e-CCM decision support by using smartphones led to a greater proportion of children being referred to higher-level facilities, with no apparent increase in hospital admissions or repeat consultations in village clinics. Our findings provide support for the implementation of e-CCM tools in Malawi and other low- and middle-income countries with a need for ongoing assessments of effectiveness and integration with national digital health strategies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02763345; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02763345

Overview

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 · 10.2196/25777

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Chirambo et al. (2021) used six steps in the stepped wedge design.

    “6”

    From Applications and implementation considerations for stepped-wedge designs in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [54]

    The Methods > Study Design and Randomization and Blinding sections describe a stepped-wedge trial with six clusters whose crossover sequence was randomized (page not provided). They do not state that the design had six steps; the reported number refers to clusters, not explicitly to steps. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Chirambo et al. (2021) selected the stepped-wedge design to ensure all clinics eventually received the intervention, to control for time effects, and to facilitate logistical implementation by a single study team.

    “The stepped-wedge design was selected to ensure all clinics eventually received the intervention, to control for time effects due to evolving conditions, and to facilitate logistical implementation by a single study team.”

    From Applications and implementation considerations for stepped-wedge designs in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [54]

    Methods > Study Design (page unavailable) describes clusters crossing from control to intervention, and Discussion > Principal Findings (page unavailable) says the stepped-wedge design helps minimize temporal bias. The paper does not say the design was selected to ease implementation by a single study team. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Chirambo et al. (2021) included 102 clusters (village clinics).

    “102 village clinics”

    From Applications and implementation considerations for stepped-wedge designs in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as [54]

    The Study Design section states that the study was conducted in 102 village clinics, supporting the citing sentence as printed. But the Randomization and Blinding section says those clinics were grouped into 6 clusters, not 102 clusters; the claim’s parenthetical description conflates clinics with clusters. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Chirambo et al. (2021) used a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized design where clusters of village clinics were randomized to determine the sequence of crossover from control to intervention.

    “The study used a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized design. Clusters of village clinics were randomized to determine the sequence of crossover from the control phase (using paper CCM alone) to the intervention phase (using paper CCM and the e-CCM app).”
  • Chirambo et al. (2021) had a duration of exposure in each phase varying between 2 and 7 weeks.

    “The duration of exposure in each phase varied between 2 and 7 weeks.”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 7

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.09.034 · DOI
  2. 10.1186/1478-4491-7-13 · DOI
  3. 10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00170 · DOI
  4. 10.1056/NEJMsb071889 · DOI
  5. Kok, MC, 2013, Malawi Med J, 25, 5
  6. 10.4314/mmj.v28i2.2 · DOI
  7. 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.12-0221 · DOI
  8. 10.1186/s12913-016-1402-x · DOI
  9. O’ ConnorYHardyVThompsonMMastellosNTranTO’ DonoghueJChiramboGBAnderssonBCarlssonSHeavinCThe importance of form field validation: lessons learnt from a feasibility study of an mHealth application in Malawi, Africa2016Proceeding of the 20th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2016)Jun 27 - Jul 1, 2016Chiayi, Taiwan
  10. 10.4314/mmj.v31i3.3 · DOI
  11. 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.12-0221 · DOI
  12. 10.1093/ije/dyq032 · DOI
  13. 10.2471/BLT.16.175869 · DOI
  14. 10.4314/mmj.v29i4.11 · DOI
  15. 10.4314/ahs.v16i1.12 · DOI
  16. 10.5334/aogh.919 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104323 · DOI
  18. 10.1186/s13063-017-2213-z · DOI
  19. O’ Connor, Y, 2015, New Horizons in Design Science: Broadening the Research Agenda, 366
  20. 10.3402/gha.v9.29177 · DOI
  21. 10.4269/ajtmh.2012.11-0759 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.cct.2006.05.007 · DOI
  23. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014896 · DOI
  24. 10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1186/1472-6963-12-158 · DOI
  26. 10.1093/heapol/czp011 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113410 · DOI
  28. 10.2202/1948-4682.1183 · DOI
  29. 2006, Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries, 2nd edition, 1245-1261
  30. 10.1016/j.imu.2019.100261 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Chirambo, G. B., Thompson, M., Hardy, V., Ide, N., Hwang, P. H., Dharmayat, K., Mastellos, N., Heavin, C., O'Connor, Y., Muula, A. S., Andersson, B., Carlsson, S., Tran, T., Hsieh, J. C.-L., Lee, H.-Y., Fitzpatrick, A., Joseph Wu, T.-S., & O'Donoghue, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Malawi (MW)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University College Cork (IE)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • World Health Organization Regional Office for the Americas (US)
Corresponding author
Chirambo, Griphin Baxter
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2021-10-20
Volume
23
Issue
10
Pages
e25777
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3192153697
Cited by
7
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DiVA (Linnaeus University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • University of Washington
  • Imperial College London
  • European Commission (305292)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › ICT in Developing Communities
Keywords
integrated community case management, urgent referral, reconsultation, hospitalization, children under five, village clinics, health surveillance assistants, guideline adherence, acute childhood illness, Malawi, health information technology, child mortality reduction, malaria, pneumonia, diarrhea
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Child, Hospitalization, Humans, Malawi, Referral and Consultation, Case Management

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