1. Introduction
The World Health Organization (WHO) has clearly indicated that digital health is an essential component and enabler of not only Universal Health Coverage [
1], but also achieving health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [
2]. They have further indicated that digital health is rooted in eHealth, although 'digital health' is now often used as "a broad umbrella term encompassing eHealth (which includes mHealth), as well as emerging areas, such as the use of advanced computing sciences in 'big data', genomics and artificial intelligence" [
2]. Despite this, when speaking of digital technologies for health, the WHO comments: "Even so, its application to improve the health of populations remains largely untapped, and there is immense scope for the use of digital health solutions" [
3].
As a consequence, developing countries are again responding to the WHO call for national eHealth, now digital health, strategies: "To realize their potential, digital health initiatives must be part of the wider health needs and the digital health ecosystem and
guided by a robust strategy that integrates leadership, financial, organizational, human and technological resources and is used as the basis for a costed action plan which enables coordination among multiple stakeholders" [
1] (italics added for emphasis).
The literature provides four detailed approaches to eHealth Strategy development [
4,
5,
6,
7,
8], with guidance regarding national digital health strategy largely restricted to proposed actions from the WHO [
1]. These approaches are: The Commonwealth workbook [
4], the WHO/ITU toolkit [
5], the Tanzanian Case Study [
6,
7], and the eHealth Strategy Development Framework (eHSDF) [
8]. Given the profile and influence of the WHO, most low- and middle-income countries adopt the WHO National eHealth Strategy Toolkit, which states that it provides guidance on "establishing a national eHealth vision, developing a national eHealth action plan, and monitoring and evaluation" [
5]. This includes Botswana, where the National eHealth Strategy was released in March 2020 [
9].
A review of this national strategy identified an omission that would prevent this sparsely populated country from leveraging the benefits of telemedicine to address the country's health-related issues (HRI) [
10]. Botswana's eHealth strategy is silent on the structured, sustained, and scaled use of telemedicine (which can include mHealth applications), which should play a major role in developing countries [
11], particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic [
12]. To address this, the development of a telemedicine-specific strategy that could align with and complement the existing National eHealth Strategy for Botswana has been recommended [
10].
Recent research emulated the application of the eHealth Strategy Development Framework [
13,
14]. It showed that within Botswana, specific knowledge and insight of eHealth and telemedicine amongst healthcare workers and patients were lacking, but there was general acceptance, willingness to use, and belief that telemedicine was helpful [
14]. Key Informants also identified priority health issues and proposed solutions to each identified HRI [
13]. Some suggested solutions involved eHealth broadly, or telemedicine applications specifically, with three dominant eHealth categories being endorsed: telehealth (including telemedicine), health informatics, and elearning.
It is against this backdrop that the provision of recommendations for a telemedicine-specific strategy to complement Botswana's National eHealth Strategy is proffered. Such a supplementary phenomenon is not new, with South Africa [
15] and Ethiopia [
16] having developed such post hoc strategies, although these are not yet reported to be implemented. However, given that only a national government can develop a binding strategy for its country, this paper presents only 'recommended' telemedicine interventions (and the rationale for their selection) which should be considered by the Government of Botswana as content for their own telemedicine-specific strategy.
The existing evidence of telemedicine activities within Botswana suggests, with few exceptions, a history of uncoordinated and fragmented deployment [
10]. A new strategic approach that will assist in guiding telemedicine initiatives in Botswana is required. Without a deliberate strategy, the ad hoc application of telemedicine solutions and often resultant occurrence of "pilotitis" will remain, and patients and the country will be deprived of improved quality of care and services that could be experienced through thoughtful and structured utilisation of telemedicine.
This study, in accordance with Step 8 of the eHSDF, collates the evidence-base and perceived needs and solutions for telemedicine in Botswana and formulates defensible recommendations for a telemedicine-specific strategy to align with and enhance Botswana's existing National eHealth Strategy.
eHSDF Summary
The eHSDF was created for the development of 'eHealth' strategy [
8]. However, given that telemedicine is a sub-component of eHealth ([
17]; Figure 13.1), the same approach is appropriate for telemedicine-specific strategy development and requires only a re-focussing on telemedicine solutions rather than eHealth solutions more broadly (e.g., health informatics, ecommerce, telehealth, telemedicine). The eHSDF is grounded on seven guiding principles and consists of a detailed step-by-step process to be followed to develop an "evidence-based and defensible eHealth Strategy for any specific jurisdiction" [
8]. The first seven Steps allow for the development of the content of an eHealth strategy, with Step 8 being the synthesis of the evidence gathered in the earlier Steps to yield the eHealth strategy itself. Thereafter, Step 9 addresses the eHealth policy required to facilitate the implementation of the strategy.
Steps 1-3 constitute the major evidence-gathering steps and embrace the principle of identifying health needs within the jurisdiction of interest. As early as 1998, the importance of identifying a clear and specific health need for a telemedicine service was noted as a prerequisite, and it has been re-iterated by many authors using various terms over the intervening years [
18,
19]. This can only be achieved if the prevailing context is thoroughly understood, as achieved through Steps 1 and 2, and refined by Step 3 [
8]. Failure to understand health needs can result in telemedicine services not targeting a population's current primary health concerns, as has been shown in Latin America [
20], jeopardising sustainability. Once identified, not all needs can be addressed (given time, technology, and resource constraints), and therefore focus must be given to the most pressing issues, requiring prioritisation of health needs (Step 4).
The aim of the study was to answer the question: "What telemedicine options can be recommended for a telemedicine-specific strategy to address identified priority health-related issues in Botswana?" In keeping with earlier research, the eHSDF was adopted as the guiding theory and approach for strategy development [
8].
4. Discussion
This is the first attempt to employ the eHSDF in a formal way, although not in the national, government-led manner originally envisaged. Nonetheless, application of its principles and process has been successful in allowing meaningful and evidence-based telemedicine solutions to be recommended for Botswana. Preliminary investigations confirmed the need for an evidence-based telemedicine-specific strategy that complements and supports the existing National eHealth Strategy [
10]. Such a strategy is necessary to redress the absence of telemedicine initiatives in the National eHealth Strategy, and the current often uncoordinated and unstructured telemedicine interventions that are difficult to scale and sustain - a situation that squanders limited national resources. Pragmatic research studies involving healthcare workers, patients and other eHealth experts clearly revealed the areas of focus that the proposed strategy should address [
13,
14]. Using this and evidence from a variety of other sources, six priority HRIs were differentiated (
Table 1). Subsequently, specific clinical service, educational, and behavioural change store-and-forward telemedicine options were identified and recommended for incorporation into a telemedicine-specific strategy for Botswana (
Table 2).
Prioritisation to identify priority health-related issues was difficult. The GBD study for Botswana effectively addresses disease burden (mortality and morbidity data) and determinants (risk factor data). Therefore a simple way of prioritising would have been to just consider health issues identified by the GBD study since they are evidence-based and objective. Insight around morbidity identifies what issues the population currently must live with (related to quality of life), and risk factor insight identifies what issues the members of the population could modify in order to improve their quality of life and delay death. As such, giving priority to addressing morbidity and risk factors might be considered most appropriate for any healthcare system. However, this approach would have ignored the other sources of data available – healthcare worker and patient opinion, government documents, available Botswana eHealth literature, and SDGs. Ignoring these might have omitted other important HRIs.
Ultimately, alignment was sought between the GBD morbidity and risk factor categories and the identified health-related issues from other sources, arbitrarily selecting 'priority' HRI as those that were identified by at least five of the six data sources. Primary difficulties were related to GBD data focussing on diseases, HCW / patient opinion focussing on health system issues, government documents addressing both disease and health system issues, and the Botswana eHealth literature often focussing on narrow HRI of debatable national significance. The approach taken to identify priority HRI was certainly a compromise, but it did at least allow some of the issues identified by other means to be accommodated and addressed. However, as a result, no issues identified by HCW or patients were included, for example the important issue of shortage of HCW. Furthermore, the approach was not streamlined; for example, in the initial process of data charting, placing the GBD risk factor 'alcohol use' in line with 'interpersonal violence' (IPV) does not imply alcohol use is the only HRI of relevance to IPV; similarly, 'unsafe sex' is not the only HRI of relevance to 'HIV / AIDS'. The process merely aligns those HRI identified from different sources.
Telemedicine has existed for several decades, but has never been as widely adopted as expected despite its great potential. For example, telemedicine has been used in a wide range of disciplines to improve access to clinical care and, importantly, specialist care. Similarly, telemedicine solutions have addressed TB, HIV/AIDS, hypertension, and sexual/reproductive health issues. They have also been applied to various aspects of HCW and patient education (awareness, training, in-servicing, continuing professional development /continuing medical education, skills raising), as well as remote data collection/bio-surveillance, and many others. Understanding which solution to adopt, when, why, and how is key.
Reasons for poor uptake vary, but Sony et al. reported a lack of a patient-centric approach or alignment of technology investments with organisational goals and objectives, as well as poor supportive organisational culture, effective leadership, and employee skills [
57]. In Middle Eastern countries, barriers were user (doctor and patient) resistance, poor infrastructure, funding, health system quality, and information technology training; as well as cultural, legal and regulatory barriers [
58]. Other barriers have also been noted for developing countries; for example in Ethiopia infrastructure and costs were the most frequently reported barriers, and staff resistance was noted, while for patients in Pakistan, travelling cost, attitudes, and perceived usefulness were the primary barriers to adoption of telemedicine [
59,
60].
Choosing a telemedicine solution that overcomes prevailing barriers is difficult. Telemedicine solutions can range from the modest (telephone call, text messaging) to videoconferencing to the very sophisticated (robotic telesurgery). The latter examples can quickly and markedly raise the associated cost, infrastructure needs, connectivity needs, and complexity of the telemedicine setting. This is not ideal, and the literature has for many years supported seeking the simplest, least expensive, and easily scaled approaches [
18,
19,
61]. With regard to Low- and Middle-Income Country (LMIC) settings the most appropriate mode is asynchronous, because it can address the bandwidth constraints as well as the data costs that are comparatively high for developing countries. To a certain extent, asynchronous telemedicine also minimises the impact of the digital divide experienced in many LMIC settings, since many people are familiar with text or e-mail messaging.
It is noted that Botswana has experience with telemedicine; e.g., text messaging for behaviour change, mHealth for store-and-forward telemedicine, and videoconferenced dermatopathology. Therefore the proposed approaches deliberately leverage Botswana's cellular network coverage, telemedicine experience, and familiarity of the population with mobile phone use. The recommended technologies are low-bandwidth and are based on asynchronous (store-and-forward) instant messaging, e-mail, or web-based approaches.
As a result, very pragmatic telemedicine approaches have been selected whose specific solution and content can be directed towards one or more of the particular need(s) of each HRI – something the Government of Botswana and other stakeholders would need to clarify. Since more than one solution (technological or otherwise) is possible for any particular HRI, and since telemedicine is dynamic (changing in tandem with technological advancements) any strategy should be periodically reviewed to align with applicable technologies or other options appropriate for future use. Furthermore, as experience is gained by patients, providers, population, and policy-makers, it will become possible and desirable to scale or expand the spectrum of telemedicine delivery modes and activities. For example, as smartphone penetration increases within Botswana, use of the full capability of smart-phone-based applications (such as WhatsApp) may be leveraged, evolving from text messaging, through forwarding of images, to mobile phone-based videoconferencing.
Although simple modes and activities have been proposed, they are effective and will have a broad impact. The practical utility of the study findings manifests in the form of potential telemedicine benefits. If adopted and correctly implemented Botswana, and perhaps by emulation other jurisdictions, will realise potential telemedicine benefits in more systematic, scaled, and sustainable ways. Examples of these benefits include: reduced transport costs for both patients and the Government (the provider of most health and healthcare services), provision of preventative healthcare for patients, and patient access to healthcare specialist services in underserved areas. Telemedicine also allows for earlier diagnosis and treatment, leading to reduced hospital admissions and costs to the Government. It has also been shown that a healthier population provides a healthier and more productive workforce.
The development and implementation of any national strategy is not straightforward. Whilst the government must be involved (ensuring a conducive, safe, regulated, and resourced setting), it must also encourage and support growth and application to flourish from the 'bottom up', and not the 'top down' in order to lead to valued and sustained use [
19,
62]. It must also ensure that the correct solution is implemented for the correct purpose. Telemedicine is a component of eHealth whose uses, as noted above, can be focussed or broad, simple or complex, inexpensive or costly. To ensure widespread adoption that leads to successful implementations and encourages future growth, selecting the simplest, easiest to deliver solution has wisdom and merit. This study provides practical guidance whose recommendations can be adopted and pursued to realise a needs-based telemedicine-specific strategy that leads to health system strengthening in Botswana.
Limitations
This study provides the rationale for pursuing a telemedicine-specific strategy for Botswana, describes the eHSDF exemplar as an approach, and provides recommendations for telemedicine applications. The study has limitations. Performance of the eHSDF process in this and prior studies was only emulated as an academic exercise, and not completed as a national, even regional or institutional, activity. If undertaken at such scale, active involvement of a greater number of informed participants and enhanced performance of each step would occur, resulting in a stronger strategy. In addition, the prioritisation process was, as noted, a compromise; a government or other body might approach the process differently and arrive at a different set of priority HRIs, and thereby a different set of suitable telemedicine solutions for consideration. There is no single perfect process for strategy development, therefore the findings of this study, although reasonable, present only one possible set of solutions for a telemedicine-specific strategy for Botswana. Finally, as previously noted, only the Government of Botswana can approve a telemedicine-specific strategy, thus this paper provides only recommendations for consideration. The findings may either be sanctioned, or refined at the Government's discretion.