medigraphic.com
ISSN 2307-2113 (Electronic)
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED)

2021, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2021; 32 (4)

Application and use of mobile devices in Primary Health Care in Brasil

Dias VD, Rodrigues BP, Laerte GT, de Azevedo GEA, Conceição OV, Costa MZF, Fabriz A, Carvalho PI, Bezerra CR

Language: Portugués
References: 65
Page: 1-38
PDF size: 725.25 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The research aimed to assess the network of actors and their effects on the use of mobile devices in Primary Health Care. Qualitative study was carried out based on the Actor-Network Theory and the Cartography of Controversies. Interviews were conducted with six nurses, 12 Community Health Agents, two Primary Health Care coordinators, three IT Technicians, and seven patients, participant observation and collection of inscription devices in a city in Minas Gerais, Brazil. The data was analyzed using Content Analysis and systematized using Atlas.ti software. The network of actors, understood as an articulator of connections, building a network in association with other human and nonhuman mediators, has had effects on the use of tablets, in the form of (re)inventions, in addition to the regulated uses. There was resistance, agreement, and conflicts. The tablet was an actant that influenced the professional-patient relationship. It is necessary to take into account the effects emitted by humans and nonhumans in the adoption of technologies, and the challenge of using and improving technologies to qualify health care management remains.


REFERENCES

  1. Ministério da Saúde. Resolução nº 7, de 24 de novembro de 2016: Define oprontuário eletrônico como modelo de informação para registro das ações desaúde na atenção básica e dá outras providências. Brasília: Diário Oficial daUnião; 2016.

  2. World Health Organization. WHO guideline: recommendations on digitalinterventions for health system strengthening: evidence and recommendations.World Health Organization; 2019.

  3. Ministério da Saúde. Portaria nº 2.436, de 21 de setembro de 2017. Aprova aPolítica Nacional de Atenção Básica. Brasília: Diário Oficial da União; 2017.

  4. Bastos ML, Menzies D, Hone T, Dehghani K, Trajman A. The impact of theBrazilian family health on selected primary care sensitive conditions: asystematic review. PloS One. 2017;12(8):1-14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182336

  5. Ministério da Saúde. Política Nacional de Atenção Básica. Brasília: Ministérioda Saúde; 2012.

  6. Ngongo BP, Ochola P, Ndegwa J, Katuse P. The technological, organizationaland environmental determinants of adoption of mobile health applications (mhealth)by hospitals in Kenya. PloS One. 2019;14(12):e0225167. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225167

  7. Iribarren SJ, Cato K, Falzon L, Stone PW. What is the economic evidence formHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions. PloSOne. 2017;12(2):e0170581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170581

  8. Alami H, Gagnon MP, Fortin JP. Digital health and the challenge of healthsystems transformation. MHealth. 2017 [acesso: 15/12/2020];3-31. Disponívelem: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5583041/

  9. Mengesha W, Steege R, Kea AZ, Theobald S, Datiko DG. Can mHealth improvetimeliness and quality of health data collected and used by health extensionworkers in rural Southern Ethiopia? J Publ Health. 2018;40(Suppl. 2):74-86.Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdy200

  10. Petersen A, Tanner C, Munsie M. Citizens’ use of digital media to connectwith health care: Socio-ethical and regulatory implications. Health.2019;23(4):367-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459319847505

  11. Rowland SP, Fitzgerald JE, Holme T, Powell J, McGregor A. What is theclinical value of mHealth for patients? NPJ Dig Med. 2020;3(1):1-6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0206-x

  12. Smahel D, Elavsky S, Machackova H. Functions of mHealth applications: Auser’s perspective. Health Inform J. 2019;25(3):1065-75. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458217740725

  13. Medhanyie AA, Spigt M, Yebyo H, Little A, Tadesse K, Dinant GJ, Blanco R.Quality of routine health data collected by health workers using smartphone atprimary health care in Ethiopia. Internat J Med Inform. 2017;101:9-14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.01.016

  14. Qudah B, Luetsch K. The influence of mobile health applications on patienthealthcareprovider relationships: a systematic, narrative review. Pat educatCouns. 2019; 102(6):1080-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.01.021

  15. White A, Thomas DS, Ezeanochie N, Bull S. Health Worker mHealthUtilization: A Systematic Review. Comp Inform Nurs. 2016;34(5):206-13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000231

  16. Bradley SM. Use of Mobile Health and Patient-Generated Data-Making HealthCare Better by Making Health Care Different. JAMA Network Open. 2020 [acesso:19/01/2021];3(4):e202971. Disponível em:https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2764575

  17. Grande D, Luna Marti X, Feuerstein-Simon R, et al. Health Policy and PrivacyChallenges Associated With Digital Technology. JAMA NetworkOpen. 2020;3(7):e208285. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8285

  18. Iwaya LH, Fischer-Hübner S, Åhlfeldt RM, Martucci LA. Mobile health systemsfor community-based primary care: Identifying controls and mitigating privacythreats. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2019 [acesso: 19/01/2021];7(3):e11642.Disponível em: https://mhealth.jmir.org/2019/3/e11642/

  19. Gopalakrishnan L, Buback L, Fernald L, Walker D, Diamond-Smith N, et al.Using mHealth to improve health care delivery in India: A qualitative examinationof the perspectives of community health workers and beneficiaries. PLoS One. 2020;715(1):e0227451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227451

  20. Watkins JO, Goudge J, Gómez-Olivé FX, Griffiths F. Mobile phone use amongpatients and health workers to enhance primary healthcare: A qualitative studyin rural South Africa. Soc Sci Med. 2018;198:139-47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.011

  21. Schoen J, Mallett JW, Grossman-Kahn R, Brentani A, Kaselitz E, Heisler M.Perspectives and experiences of community health workers in Brazilian primarycare centers using m-health tools in home visits with community members. HumResour Health. 2017;15(1):71-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-017-0245-9

  22. Bilodeau A, Galarneau M, Lefebvre C, Potvin L. Linking process and effects ofintersectoral action on local neighbourhoods: systemic modelling based on actor–network theory. Sociol Health Illness. 2019;41(1):165-79. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12813

  23. Booth RG, Andrusyszyn MA, Iwasiw C, Donelle L, Compeau D. Actor‐NetworkTheory as a sociotechnical lens to explore the relationship of nurses andtechnology in practice: methodological considerations for nursing research. NursInq. 2016; 23(2):109-20. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12118

  24. Tonelli DF. Origens e afiliações epistemológicas da Teoria Ator-Rede:implicações para a análise organizacional. Cadernos EBAPE.BR. 2016;14(2):377-90.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395141596

  25. Esteves CJ, Gontijo TL, Brito MJ. Rede de atores e suas influências nainformatização da Atenção Básica à Saúde no Brasil. Interf Comunic Saúde Educ.2020;23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/Interface.180364.

  26. Desai A, Zoccatelli G, Adams M, et al. Taking data seriously: the value ofactor-network theory in rethinking patient exper

  27. Latour B, Venturini TY, Jensen P. Fill in the gap: A new alliance for social andnatural sciences. J Artif Societ Soc Simulat Sim Soc Consort. 2015;18(2):18-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.2729

  28. Latour B. Reagregando o social: uma introdução à teoria do ator-rede.Edufba; 2012

  29. Callon M. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of thescallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. Sociol Rev. 1984;32:196-233. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x

  30. Potvin L, Clavier C. Actor-Network Theory: The governance of intersectoralinitiatives: Health Promotion and the Policy Process. Oxford University Press;2014.

  31. Bueger C, Stockbruegger J. Actor-network theory: objects and actants,networks and narratives. In: Technology and World Politics. Routledge; 2017;42-59.

  32. Venturini T. Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actornetworktheory. Publ Underst Sci. 2010;19(3).258-73. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509102694

  33. Esteves CJ, Pires MC, Freitas MD, Macedo AS. A Teoria Ator-Rede comoreferencial teórico-metodológico em pesquisas em saúde e enfermagem. TexCont Enferm. 2020;26(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072017000910017

  34. Venturini T. Building on faults: how to represent controversies with digitalmethods. Publ Underst Sci. 2012;21(7):796-812. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510387558

  35. Pedro RM. Sobre redes e controvérsias: ferramentas para compor cartografiaspsicossociais. In: Ferreira AA, Freire LL. Teoria Ator-Rede & Psicologia. Rio deJaneiro: Nau; 2010:78-96.

  36. Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitativeapproaches. AltaMira Press; 2017.

  37. Feroz A, Jabeen R, Saleem S. Using mobile phones to improve communityhealth workers performance in low-and-middle-income countries. BMC PublHealth. 2020;20(1):1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8173-3ience data. J Health Serv ResPolicy. 2017;22(2):134-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819616685349

  38. Latour B, Woolgar S. A vida de laboratório: a produção dos fatos científicos.Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará; 1997.

  39. Ministério da Saúde Brasil. Resolução nº 7, de 24 de novembro de 2016.Define o prontuário eletrônico como modelo de informação para registro dasações de saúde na atenção básica e dá outras providências. Brasília: DiárioOficial da União; 2016.

  40. Ministério da Saúde Brasil. Portaria nº 1.645, de 2 de outubro de 2015. Dispõesobre o Programa Nacional de Melhoria do Acesso e da Qualidade da AtençãoBásica (PMAQ-AB). Brasília: Diário Oficial da União; 2015.

  41. Ministério da Saúde Brasil. Manual do Aplicativo ACS - Agente Comunitário deSaúde. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2015.

  42. Ministério da Saúde Brasil. Portaria nº 2.073, de 31 de agosto de 2011.Regulamenta o uso de padrões de interoperabilidade e informação em saúde parasistemas de informação em saúde no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde, nosníveis Municipal, Distrital, Estadual e Federal, e para os sistemas privados e dosetor de saúde suplementar. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2011.

  43. Ministério da Saúde Brasil. Sistema e-SUS Atenção Básica: manual deexportação. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2017 [acesso: 15/12/20]. Disponívelem: http://aps.saude.gov.br/ape/esus/manual_3_2/introdutorio

  44. Ministério da Saúde Brasil. Sistema e-SUS Atenção Básica: manual deimplantação. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2014.

  45. Ministério da Saúde Brasil. Portaria Nº 1.412, de 10 de julho de 2013. Instituio Sistema de Informação para a Atenção Básica (SISAB). Brasília: Diário Oficial daUnião, Ministério da Saúde; 2013.

  46. Bardin L. Análise de Conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70; 2016.

  47. Cucciniello M, Lapsley I, Nasi G, Pagliari C. Understanding key factorsaffecting electronic medical record implementation: a sociotechnicalapproach. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):1-19. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0928-7

  48. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Shaw S, Papoutsi C, Vijayaraghavan S, Stones R.Infrastructure revisited: an ethnographic case study of how health information infrastructure shapes and constrains technological innovation. J Med Int Res.2019 [acesso: 12/12/2020];21(12):e16093. Disponível em:https://www.jmir.org/2019/12/e16093/

  49. Sage D, Vitry C, Dainty A. Exploring the Organizational Proliferation of NewTechnologies: An Affective Actor-Network Theory. Organiz Stud. 2020;41(3):345–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618815524

  50. Snowden A, Kolb H. Two years of unintended consequences: introducing anelectronic health record system in a hospice in Scotland. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(9-10), 1414-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13576

  51. Laasch O, Moosmayer D, Arp F. Responsible practices in the wild: An actornetworkview on learning for responsible practices as translation through mobileapps. Springer; 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04214-8

  52. Law J. Traduction / Trahison: Notes on ANT. Converg. 2006 [acesso:20/01/2021];13(42):47-72. Disponível em:http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-14352006000300004&lng=es&nrm=iso

  53. Parra-Romero A, Gitahy L. Movimiento social como actor-red: ensamblando elcomité por la defensa del agua y del páramo de Santurbán. Univers Human.2017;84(84):115-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.uh84.msar

  54. Johansson P, Petersson G, Saveman BI, Nilsson G. Using advanced mobiledevices in nursing practice–the views of nurses and nursing students. HealthInform J. 2014;20(3):220-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213491512

  55. Giles-Smith L, Spencer A, Shaw C, Porter C, Lobchuk M. A study of the impactof an educational intervention on nurse attitudes and behaviours toward mobiledevice use in hospital settings. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2017;38(1):12-9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5596/c17-003

  56. Daltro E, Barbosa D, Machado A, Santos E, Barrios R. Aceitação e uso detecnologias móveis de informação pelos Agentes comunitários de saúde deSapeaçu. Rev Bai Saúde Públ. 2017;41(2):2318-660. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22278/2318-2660

  57. Morato YC, Carvalho DBF, de Oliveira VC, Dias TMR, Amaral GG. Análise doSistema de Informação em Imunizações do Brasil sob a ótica das heurísticas deusabilidade. Rev Cubana Inf Cienc Salud. 2020;31(2):e1515. Disponível em:http://dx.doi.org/10.36512/rcics.v31i2.1515

  58. Silva BS, de Oliveira VC, Pinheiro MMK, Gontijo TL, Pinto IC. NationalImmunization Program Information System: implementation contextassessment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:1-10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05175-9

  59. Risling T, Risling D, Holtslander L. Creating a Social Media Assessment Toolfor Family Nursing. J Fam Nurs. 2017;23(1):13–3. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840716681071

  60. Wan X, Raymond HF, Wen T, et al. Acceptability and adoption of handheldcomputer data collection for public health research in China: a case study. BMCMed Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(1):68-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947

  61. Gravlee CC. Mobile computer-assisted personal interviewing with handheldcomputers: The Entryware System 3.0. Field Meth. 2002;14(3):322-36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X0201400305

  62. Giduthuri JG, Maire N, Joseph S, Kudale A, Schaetti C, Sundaram N, SchindlerC, Weiss MG. Developing and validating a tablet version of an illness explanatorymodel interview for a public health survey in Pune. India: PLoS One. 2014;9(9):1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107374

  63. Lane C. Podcasting at the UW: An evaluation of current use. University ofWashington; 2006.

  64. Vo V, Auroy L, Sarradon-Eck A. Percepções dos pacientes sobre aplicativos desaúde móvel: revisão metaetnográfica de estudos qualitativos. JMIR mHealth euHealth. 2019;7(7):e13817. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/13817

  65. Kumah-Crystal YA, Hood KK, Ho YX, Lybarger CK, O'Connor BH, Rothman RL,Mulvaney SA. Technology use for diabetes problem solving in adolescents withtype 1 diabetes: relationship to glycemic control. Diab Technol Therap.2015;17(7):449-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2014.0422




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com