ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of mHealth interventions for maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) in low– and middle–income countries (LMIC).Methods16 online international databases were searched to identify studies evaluating the impact of mHealth interventions on MNCH outcomes in LMIC, between January 1990 and May 2014. Comparable studies were included in a random–effects meta–analysis.FindingsOf 8593 unique references screened after de–duplication, 15 research articles and two conference abstracts met inclusion criteria, including 12 intervention and three observational studies. Only two studies were graded at low risk of bias. Only one study demonstrated an improvement in morbidity or mortality, specifically decreased risk of perinatal death in children of mothers who received SMS support during pregnancy, compared with routine prenatal care. Meta–analysis of three studies on infant feeding showed that prenatal interventions using SMS/cell phone (vs routine care) improved rates of breastfeeding (BF) within one hour after birth (odds ratio (OR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27–2.75, I2 = 80.9%) and exclusive BF for three/four months (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.26–2.50, I2 = 52.8%) and for six months (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.46–3.68, I2 = 0.0%). Included studies encompassed interventions designed for health information delivery (n = 6); reminders (n = 3); communication (n = 2); data collection (n = 2); test result turnaround (n = 2); peer group support (n = 2) and psychological intervention (n = 1).ConclusionsMost studies of mHealth for MNCH in LMIC are of poor methodological quality and few have evaluated impacts on patient outcomes. Improvements in intermediate outcomes have nevertheless been reported in many studies and there is modest evidence that interventions delivered via SMS messaging can improve infant feeding. Ambiguous descriptions of interventions and their mechanisms of impact present difficulties for interpretation and replication. Rigorous studies with potential to offer clearer evidence are underway.

BackgroundThere are a lack of reliable data on the epidemiology and associated burden and costs of asthma. We sought to provide the first UK-wide estimates of the epidemiology, healthcare utilisation and costs of asthma.MethodsWe obtained and analysed asthma-relevant data from 27 datasets: these comprised national health surveys for 2010–11, and routine administrative, health and social care datasets for 2011–12; 2011–12 costs were estimated in pounds sterling using economic modelling.ResultsThe prevalence of asthma depended on the definition and data source used. The UK lifetime prevalence of patient-reported symptoms suggestive of asthma was 29.5 % (95 % CI, 27.7–31.3; n = 18.5 million (m) people) and 15.6 % (14.3–16.9, n = 9.8 m) for patient-reported clinician-diagnosed asthma. The annual prevalence of patient-reported clinician-diagnosed-and-treated asthma was 9.6 % (8.9–10.3, n = 6.0 m) and of clinician-reported, diagnosed-and-treated asthma 5.7 % (5.7–5.7; n = 3.6 m). Asthma resulted in at least 6.3 m primary care consultations, 93,000 hospital in-patient episodes, 1800 intensive-care unit episodes and 36,800 disability living allowance claims. The costs of asthma were estimated at least £1.1 billion: 74 % of these costs were for provision of primary care services (60 % prescribing, 14 % consultations), 13 % for disability claims, and 12 % for hospital care. There were 1160 asthma deaths.ConclusionsAsthma is very common and is responsible for considerable morbidity, healthcare utilisation and financial costs to the UK public sector. Greater policy focus on primary care provision is needed to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, hospitalisations and deaths, and reduce costs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0657-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundTelehealthcare involves the use of information and communication technologies to deliver healthcare at a distance and to support patient self-management through remote monitoring and personalised feedback. It is timely to scrutinise the evidence regarding the benefits, risks and costs of telehealthcare.Methods and FindingsTwo reviewers searched for relevant systematic reviews published from January 1997 to November 2011 in: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and PakMed. Reviewers undertook independent quality assessment of studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for systematic reviews. 1,782 review articles were identified, from which 80 systematic reviews were selected for inclusion. These covered a range of telehealthcare models involving both synchronous (live) and asynchronous (store-and-forward) interactions between provider and patients. Many studies showed no differences in outcomes between telehealthcare and usual care. Several reviews highlighted the large number of short-term (<12 months) feasibility studies with under 20 participants. Effects of telehealthcare on health service indicators were reported in several reviews, particularly reduced hospitalisations. The reported clinical effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions for patients with long-term conditions appeared to be greatest in those with more severe disease at high-risk of hospitalisation and death. The failure of many studies to adequately describe the intervention makes it difficult to disentangle the contributions of technological and human/organisational factors on the outcomes reported. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of telehealthcare remains sparse. Patient safety considerations were absent from the evaluative telehealthcare literature.ConclusionsPolicymakers and planners need to be aware that investment in telehealthcare will not inevitably yield clinical or economic benefits. It is likely that the greatest gains will be achieved for patients at highest risk of serious outcomes. There is a need for longer-term studies in order to determine whether the benefits demonstrated in time limited trials are sustained.

BackgroundThe UK-wide National Review of Asthma Deaths sought to identify avoidable factors from the high numbers of deaths, but did not examine variation by socioeconomic status (SES) or region.MethodsWe used asthma deaths in England over the period 2002–2015 obtained from national deaths registers, summarised by quintiles of Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and Government Office Region. Emergency asthma admissions were obtained from Hospital Episode Statistics for England 2001–2011. The prevalence of asthma was derived from the Health Survey for England 2010. Associations of mortality, admissions and prevalence with IMD quintile and region were estimated cross-sectionally using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) adjusted for age and sex and, where possible, smoking.ResultsAsthma mortality decreased among more deprived groups at younger ages. Among 5–44 year olds, those in the most deprived quintile, mortality was 19% lower than those in the least deprived quintile (IRR 0.81 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.96). In older adults, this pattern was reversed (45–74 years: IRR 1.37 (1.24–1.52), ≥75 years: IRR 1.30 (1.22–1.39)). In 5–44 year olds the inverse trend with asthma mortality contrasted with large positive associations for admissions (IRR 3.34 (3.30–3.38)) and prevalence of severe symptoms (IRR 2.38 (1.70–3.33)). Prevalence trends remained after adjustment for smoking. IRRs for asthma mortality, admissions and prevalence showed significant heterogeneity between English regions.ConclusionsDespite asthma mortality, emergency admissions and prevalence decreasing over recent decades, England still experiences significant SES and regional variations. The previously undocumented inverse relation between deprivation and mortality in the young requires further investigation.