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

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...
5 comments
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more