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...
1 comment
Read more

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abolishing NHS England will make only modest savings

Abolishing NHS England and reducing Integrated Care Board (ICB) staffing by 50% may appear substantial, but the projected savings - around £500 million annually if fully achieved - would represent only a modest increase (approximately 0.25%) in annual NHS funding in England, given the NHS England budget is approaching £200 billion per year. Evidence from past NHS reforms (like the 2012 Health and Social Care Act) shows mixed results; some efficiency gains but often offset by new layers of complexity elsewhere in NHS structures. Without parallel initiatives to streamline administrative processes, improve efficiency, and enhance clinical productivity, such structural changes to NHS England and ICBs alone will not significantly improve frontline clinical care or health outcomes. Administrative costs, while important to minimise, make up a relatively small proportion of the overall NHS budget. Genuine productivity gains will therefore require systematic reforms aimed at reducing unnecessar...
Post a Comment
Read more