Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb 10;10(1):90.
doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2416-0.

Assessing the feasibility of eHealth and mHealth: a systematic review and analysis of initiatives implemented in Kenya

Martin Njoroge  1 , Dejan Zurovac  2   3   4 , Esther A A Ogara  5 , Jane Chuma  2 , Doris Kirigia  2
Affiliations

Assessing the feasibility of eHealth and mHealth: a systematic review and analysis of initiatives implemented in Kenya

Martin Njoroge et al. BMC Res Notes. .

Abstract

Background: The growth of Information and Communication Technology in Kenya has facilitated implementation of a large number of eHealth projects in a bid to cost-effectively address health and health system challenges. This systematic review aims to provide a situational analysis of eHealth initiatives being implemented in Kenya, including an assessment of the areas of focus and geographic distribution of the health projects. The search strategy involved peer and non-peer reviewed sources of relevant information relating to projects under implementation in Kenya. The projects were examined based on strategic area of implementation, health purpose and focus, geographic location, evaluation status and thematic area.

Results: A total of 114 citations comprising 69 eHealth projects fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The eHealth projects included 47 mHealth projects, 9 health information system projects, 8 eLearning projects and 5 telemedicine projects. In terms of projects geographical distribution, 24 were executed in Nairobi whilst 15 were designed to have a national coverage but only 3 were scaled up. In terms of health focus, 19 projects were mainly on primary care, 17 on HIV/AIDS and 11 on maternal and child health (MNCH). Only 8 projects were rigorously evaluated under randomized control trials.

Conclusion: This review discovered that there is a myriad of eHealth projects being implemented in Kenya, mainly in the mHealth strategic area and focusing mostly on primary care and HIV/AIDs. Based on our analysis, most of the projects were rarely evaluated. In addition, few projects are implemented in marginalised areas and least urbanized counties with more health care needs, notwithstanding the fact that adoption of information and communication technology should aim to improve health equity (i.e. improve access to health care particularly in remote parts of the country in order to reduce geographical inequities) and contribute to overall health systems strengthening.

Keywords: Evaluation; Health equity; Health information systems; Kenya; Telemedicine; eHealth; mHealth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Search results. Source: authors’ synthesis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of eHealth projects in Kenya by urbanization. Map A consisting of all the eHealth projects under implementation in 47 counties in Kenya. Map shows geographical locations of all eHealth initiatives categorised by strategic area of implementation and national projects. Map background is divided according to percentage of urbanization (see colour bars) and the number of counties in square brackets. Map B (Inset) Nairobi County (capital city) and neighbouring counties. Source: authors’ synthesis. No data permission was required
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Distribution of eHealth projects in Kenya by marginalisation. Map A demonstrates eHealth projects in Kenya based on counties and categorised by strategic area of implementation and national projects. Map background is coloured according to county marginalisation as defined by CRA (see colour bars). Map B (Inset) highlights Kisumu, Vihiga, Kakamega, Siaya and neighbouring counties. Source: authors’ synthesis. No data permission was required
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization. International Telecommunication Union. National eHealth strategy toolkit. 2012.
    1. Eysenbach G. What is e-health? J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):e20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kirigia JM, Seddoh A, Gatwiri D, Muthuri LH, Seddoh J. E-health: determinants, opportunities, challenges and the way forward for countries in the WHO African Region. BMC Public Health. 2005;5:137. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-5-137. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Catwell L, Sheikh A. Evaluating eHealth interventions: the need for continuous systemic evaluation. PLoS Med. 2009;6(8):e1000126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000126. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tomlinson M, Rotheram-Borus MJ, Swartz L, Tsai AC. Scaling up mHealth: where is the evidence? PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001382. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001382. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources