Skip to main content

Regulatory standards and guidance for the use of health applications for self-management in Africa

Despite health applications becoming ubiquitous and with enormous potential to facilitate self-management, regulatory challenges such as poor application quality, breach of data privacy and limited interoperability have impeded their full adoption. While many countries now have digital health-related policies/strategies, there is also a need for regulatory standards and guidance that address key regulatory challenges associated with the use of health applications. Currently, it is unclear the status of countries in Africa regarding regulatory standards and guidance that address the use of health applications.

This protocol published in BMJ Open describes the process of conducting a scoping review which aims to investigate the extent to which regulatory standards and guidance address the use of health applications for self-management within the WHO African Region countries.

The review will follow the methodological framework for conducting a scoping study by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), and the updated methodological guidance for conducting a Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review. Given that regulatory standards and guidance are unlikely to be available in scientific databases, we will search Scopus, Google, OpenGrey, WHO Regional Office for Africa Library (AFROLIB), African Index Medicus (AIM), websites of WHO, ITU and Ministries of Health, repositories for digital health policies. We will also search the reference lists of included documents, and contact key stakeholders in the region. Results will be reported using descriptive qualitative content analysis based on the review objectives. The policy analysis framework by Walt and Gilson (1994) will be used to organise findings. A summary of the key findings will be presented using tables, charts and maps.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058067

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

UK Covid-19 Inquiry - The Importance of a Strong Primary Healthcare System

In my witness statement for Module 10 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, I discuss the pandemic's impact through from the perspectives of  primary care and public health, drawing on my extensive experience as a senior academic at Imperial College London and as a practising GP and NHS Public Health Specialist.  I emphasise that the pandemic disproportionately affected people who were clinically vulnerable, the disabled, ethnic minority communities and those living in deprived areas. The pandemic highlighted how structural inequalities, multigenerational housing, and employment in high-risk frontline roles exacerbated health disparities.  My statement also critiques the weakening of public health infrastructure - particularly for the control of infectious diseases - and the lack of integrated health data systems to identify at-risk groups such as the clinically vulnerable. I also advocated for a more robust preventive healthcare model that prioritises community-based primary care ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
Post a Comment
Read more