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
. 2022 May 5;10(5):e36284.
doi: 10.2196/36284.

Sociotechnical Factors Affecting Patients' Adoption of Mobile Health Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis

Christine Jacob  1 , Emre Sezgin  2   3 , Antonio Sanchez-Vazquez  4 , Chris Ivory  4
Affiliations

Sociotechnical Factors Affecting Patients' Adoption of Mobile Health Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis

Christine Jacob et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

Abstract

Background: Mobile health (mHealth) tools have emerged as a promising health care technology that may contribute to cost savings, better access to care, and enhanced clinical outcomes; however, it is important to ensure their acceptance and adoption to harness this potential. Patient adoption has been recognized as a key challenge that requires further exploration.

Objective: The aim of this review was to systematically investigate the literature to understand the factors affecting patients' adoption of mHealth tools by considering sociotechnical factors (from technical, social, and health perspectives).

Methods: A structured search was completed following the participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes framework. We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and SAGE databases for studies published between January 2011 and July 2021 in the English language, yielding 5873 results, of which 147 studies met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook were followed to ensure a systematic process. Extracted data were analyzed using NVivo (QSR International), with thematic analysis and narrative synthesis of emergent themes.

Results: The technical factors affecting patients' adoption of mHealth tools were categorized into six key themes, which in turn were divided into 20 subthemes: usefulness, ease of use, data-related, monetary factors, technical issues, and user experience. Health-related factors were categorized into six key themes: the disease or health condition, the care team's role, health consciousness and literacy, health behavior, relation to other therapies, integration into patient journey, and the patients' insurance status. Social and personal factors were divided into three key clusters: demographic factors, personal characteristics, and social and cultural aspects; these were divided into 19 subthemes, highlighting the importance of considering these factors when addressing potential barriers to mHealth adoption and how to overcome them.

Conclusions: This review builds on the growing body of research that investigates patients' adoption of mHealth services and highlights the complexity of the factors affecting adoption, including personal, social, technical, organizational, and health care aspects. We recommend a more patient-centered approach by ensuring the tools' fit into the overall patient journey and treatment plan, emphasizing inclusive design, and warranting comprehensive patient education and support. Moreover, empowering and mobilizing clinicians and care teams, addressing ethical data management issues, and focusing on health care policies may facilitate adoption.

Keywords: eHealth; electronic health record; health education; mHealth; mobile health; mobile phone; patients; perception; public health practice; smartphone; technology; telehealth; telemedicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The search string according to the participants, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) framework. mHealth: mobile health.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study selection flow diagram on the basis of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Overview of social and personal factors and their occurrence.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Subanalysis of the demographic factors according to their classification in the included studies.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Overview of technical and material factors and their occurrence.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Overview of health-related factors and their occurrence.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Recommendations for a patient-centered approach to mobile health (mHealth) adoption.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Armstrong AW, Kwong MW, Chase EP, Ledo L, Nesbitt TS, Shewry SL. Teledermatology operational considerations, challenges, and benefits: the referring providers' perspective. Telemed J E Health. 2012 Oct;18(8):580–4. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2011.0241. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Avey JP, Hobbs RL. Dial in: fostering the use of telebehavioral health services in frontier Alaska. Psychol Serv. 2013 Aug;10(3):289–97. doi: 10.1037/a0028231.2012-23377-001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anderson K, Francis T, Ibanez-Carrasco F, Globerman J. Physician's perceptions of telemedicine in HIV care provision: a cross-sectional web-based survey. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017 May 30;3(2):e31. doi: 10.2196/publichealth.6896. https://publichealth.jmir.org/2017/2/e31/ v3i2e31 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bhatta R, Aryal K, Ellingsen G. Opportunities and challenges of a rural-telemedicine program in Nepal. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2015;13(30):149–53. - PubMed
    1. Mileski M, Kruse CS, Catalani J, Haderer T. Adopting telemedicine for the self-management of hypertension: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2017 Oct 24;5(4):e41. doi: 10.2196/medinform.6603. https://medinform.jmir.org/2017/4/e41/ v5i4e41 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types