The use of mobile phone technology to support various components of health care delivery (often referred to as mHealth) is on the rise. Little systematic information, however, is available on user felt needs and barriers to mHealth approaches among people with severe mental illness (SMI). Our objectives were to elicit user needs, preferences, and barriers to using mobile phones for health care service delivery among people with SMI. A cross-sectional study was carried out among 75 subjects with SMI between August 2017 and October 2017. All patients had a minimum illness duration of two years or more and a Global Assessment of Functioning score of less than 70. Information on user perspectives was elicited using a 10-item structured questionnaire, to assess mobile phone usage patterns, felt needs, barriers, and preferences, developed for use in patients with SMI. Majority of the patients reported using mobile phones and were favorably disposed to mHealth approaches. Voice calls (n = 47, 62.7%) were the most preferred mode of service delivery. The most preferred service frequency was twice-weekly (n = 31, 41.3%), followed by once-weekly (n = 22, 29.3%). Majority (n = 47, 62.7%) reported no barriers to mobile phone usage, whereas 14 (18.6%) perceived a lack of necessity of mobile phones as a service delivery medium. Reminders about medication and appointments through mobile phones (n = 35, 46.6%) were the most felt needs, followed by crisis helplines (n = 27, 36.0%) and information about mental health services (n = 22, 29.3%). These findings support the use of mHealth approaches in resource-constrained settings and provide specific inputs to refine the modalities of mHealth service delivery.

Peripheral artery disease is a prevalent illness affecting more than 200 million people worldwide. A commonly used technique to manage the condition has been open endarterectomy. However, in recent times, a shift towards minimally invasive techniques has resulted in endovascular intervention as a popular alternative. This review aims to assess the safety and efficacy of endovascular intervention when compared with endarterectomy. A systematic review of the articles published in PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Scopus within the last 10 years was conducted. The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to, and the Newcastle-Ottawa and NICE quality assessment scales were used. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed using the RStudio software (RStudio Team (2021). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R, PBC, Boston, MA, USA). Twenty-six studies were included, with a total of 7126 patients (endovascular, 2496; endarterectomy, 4630). Technical success was greater for endarterectomy than endovascular intervention with an odds ratio of 0.38; 95% CI [0.27–0.54]. In terms of safety as well endovascular intervention was better than endarterectomy with an odds ratio of 0.22; 95% CI [0.15 to 0.31] for wound infection. Endovascular intervention is a safe and effective procedure; however, it cannot be considered superior to endarterectomy.