mERA (Mobile health Reporting Evidence and Assessment) est un acronyme court et bizarre pour décrire les lignes directrices destinées à aider la description des publications basées sur le "mobile Health", essentiellement les téléphones mobiles. En fait mHealth comprend tout ce qui est 'wireless'.
Cette mERA checklist est bienvenue pour un domaine de la santé qui évolue très vite. Ces lignes directrices ont été préparées sous l'égide d'un groupe d'experts réunis par l'OMS et les méthodes de travail ont été bien décrites dans un article du BMJ du 17 mars 2016. L'article décrit les 16 items de la liste avec des explications et exemples pour chaque item. Le titre de l'article : "Guidelines for reporting of health interventions using mobile phones: mobile health (mHealth) evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) checklist".
Il existe déjà des recommandations pour mieux évaluer et rapporter les interventions avec des technologies type web ou mobile, par exemple pour les essais randomisés, il y a CONSORT-EHEALTH. Mais CONSORT-EHEALTH (auteur unique, sans groupe de travail) n'est pas repris sur EQUATOR, alors que mERA est déjà sur EQUATOR !!!! Les recommandations mERA ont l'avantage d'avoir eu une bonne méthodologie de travail.
Voici les 16 items qui mériteront une traduction française dès que possible :
| Infrastructure (population level) | 1 | Clearly presents the availability of infrastructure to support technology operations in the study location. This refers to physical infrastructure such as electricity, access to power, connectivity etc. in the local context. Reporting X% network coverage rate in the country is insufficient if the study is not being conducted at the country level | |
| Technology platform |
2 | Describes and provides justification for the technology architecture. This includes a description of software and hardware and details of any modifications made to publicly available software | |
| Interoperability/Health information systems (HIS) context | 3 | Describes how mHealth intervention can integrate into existing health information systems. Refers to whether the potential of technical and structural integration into existing HIS or programme has been described irrespective of whether such integration has been achieved by the existing system | |
| Intervention delivery | 4 | The delivery of the mHealth intervention is clearly described. This should include frequency of mobile communication, mode of delivery of intervention (that is, SMS, face to face, interactive voice response), timing and duration over which delivery occurred | |
| Intervention content | 5 | Details of the content of the intervention are described. Source and any modifications of the intervention content is described | |
| Usability/content testing | 6 | Describe formative research and/or content and/or usability testing with target group(s) clearly identified, as appropriate | |
| User feedback | 7 | Describes user feedback about the intervention or user satisfaction with the intervention. User feedback could include user opinions about content or user interface, their perceptions about usability, access, connectivity, etc | |
| Access of individual participants | 8 | Mentions barriers or facilitators to the adoption of the intervention among study participants. Relates to individual-level structural, economic and social barriers or facilitators to access such as affordability, and other factors that may limit a user’s ability to adopt the intervention | |
| Cost assessment | 9 | Presents basic costs assessment of the mHealth intervention from varying perspectives. This criterion broadly refers to the reporting of some cost considerations for the mHealth intervention in lieu of a full economic analysis. If a formal economic evaluation has been undertaken, it should be mentioned with appropriate references. Separate reporting criterion are available to guide economic reporting | |
| Adoption inputs/ programme entry | 10 | Describes how people are informed about the programme including training, if relevant. Includes description of promotional activities and/or training required to implement the mHealth solution among the user population of interest | |
| Limitations for delivery at scale | 11 | Clearly presents mHealth solution limitations for delivery at scale | |
| Contextual adaptability | 12 | Describes the adaptation, or not, of the solution to a different language, different population or context. Any tailoring or modification of the intervention that resulted from pilot testing/usability assessment is described | |
| Replicability | 13 | Detailed intervention to support replicability. Clearly presents the source code/screenshots/ flowcharts of the algorithms or examples of messages to support replicability of the mHealth solution in another setting | |
| Data security | 14 | Describes the data security procedures/ confidentiality protocols | |
| Compliance with national guidelines or regulatory statutes | 15 | Mechanism used to assure that content or other guidance/information provided by the intervention is in alignment with existing national/regulatory guidelines and is described | |
| Fidelity of the intervention | 16 | Was the intervention delivered as planned? Describe the strategies employed to assess the fidelity of the intervention. This may include assessment of participant engagement, use of backend data to track message delivery and other technological challenges in the delivery of the intervention |
