Abstract
Background While mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics may circumvent geographical and temporal barriers to efficient communication, the use of such technology in community settings will depend on user experience. We conducted a scoping review to systematically map evidence on user experiences of mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics in community healthcare settings.
Methodology We conducted a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost (Medline, CINAHL, Africa-wide, Academic Search Complete). The inter-reviewer agreement was determined using Cohen’s kappa statistic. Data quality was appraised using the mixed method appraisal tool version 2018, and the results were reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
Results Following the abstract and full article screening, nine articles were found eligible for inclusion in data extraction. Following the quality appraisal, one study scored 72.5%, one study scored 95%, and the remaining seven studies scored 100%. Inter-rater agreement was 83.54% (Kappa statistic = 0.51, p < 0.05). Three themes emerged from the articles: approaches to implementing mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics, user engagement in community-based healthcare settings, and limited user experiences in mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics. User experiences are key to the sustainable implementation of mobile-linked point-of-care diagnostics. User experiences have been evaluated in small community healthcare settings. There is limited evidence of research aimed at evaluating the usability of mobile-linked diagnostics at the community level.
Conclusion More studies are needed to assess the user experience of mobile-linked diagnostics in larger communities. This scoping review revealed gaps that need to be addressed to improve user experiences of mobile-linked diagnostics, including language barriers, privacy issues, and clear instructions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
