Back

Digital inclusion, access barriers and trust calibration in smartphone-based hypertension screening: a mixed-methods policy and implementation study in northern Nigeria

Dasa, D.; Davies, P.

2026-08-10 health informatics
10.64898/2026.08.07.26359947 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives. To assess how digital inclusion factors and physical access barriers are associated with user trust in smartphone-based remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) hypertension screening, and to identify implications for digital health pol- icy, procurement and implementation in low-resource settings. Methods. Cross-sectional mixed-methods survey in five outpatient clinics in Kebbi State, northern Nigeria (N =287). Trust was measured using comfort, confidence and perceived usefulness Likert scales. Primary analyses used binary logistic models with HC3 robust standard errors; sensitivity analyses are reported in supplementary material. Free-text responses were thematically analysed. Results. Smartphone ownership was 51.2%; Transsion-brand devices comprised 56.5% of owners. Greater distance to a blood pressure facility was independently associated with lower perceived usefulness (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.87; p=0.013) and lower comfort (OR 0.61, 0.37-0.98; p=0.042). Among owners, Transsion versus Samsung showed higher confidence odds (OR 3.82, 1.02-14.27; p=0.046). Qualitative themes supported the implementation interpretation: platform-fit and device speed requests among Transsion owners; connectivity and offline-first concerns among those with greater travel distance. No brand contrast achieved FDR-adjusted significance; brand findings are exploratory. Conclusions. Digital health policy and health technology assessment for smartphone-based screening should incorporate local device ecology, connectivity constraints, physical access burden and trust-calibration safeguards. Pre-implementation assessment of these factors is necessary for equitable and safe rPPG adoption in low-resource health systems.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.