Associations of Mobile Screening Reminders and Data Interoperability with Preventive Uptake in Migrant Worker Cohorts
Keywords:
Migrant Health, Digital Health, Preventive Screening, Data Interoperability, Preventive UptakeAbstract
Preventive healthcare uptake remains significantly low among transient populations, particularly migrant workers, who face systemic structural, financial, and geographical barriers to continuous medical care. This paper investigates the dual influence of mobile screening reminders and backend clinical data interoperability in improving preventive screening rates within a large-scale migrant worker cohort. Using a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial framework, we evaluate the impact of automated, culturally tailored, and linguistically diverse mobile health reminders paired with a standardized, cross-jurisdictional health data sharing platform. Over a twelve-month observational period involving 2,400 participants, the cohort receiving both localized mobile notifications and benefit-optimized clinic-level data exchange demonstrated a substantial, statistically significant increase in the uptake of critical screenings, including cardiovascular assessments, tuberculosis screening, and metabolic panels, compared to the control group receiving standard care. Our findings indicate that digital health interventions are significantly limited when operating in clinical silos. True expansion of preventive uptake requires a unified infrastructure combining personalized user nudging with seamless, standards-compliant Electronic Health Record interoperability across municipal and regional jurisdictions. This integration reduces administrative friction and enhances the continuity of care for transient workforces.References
1. Fisher, R.A. Statistical Methods for Research Workers; Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh, UK, 1925.
2. Tafreshi, N.K.; Kil, H.; Pandya, D.N.; Tichacek, C.J.; Doligalski, M.L.; Budzevich, M.M.; Delva, N.C.; Langsen, M.L.; Vallas, J.A.; Boulware, D.C.; et al. Lipophilicity Determines Routes of Uptake and Clearance, and Toxicity of an Alpha-Particle-Emitting Peptide Receptor Radiotherapy. ACS Pharmacol. Transl. Sci. 2021, 4, 953–965.
3. ISO 10993; Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
4. Daali, Y. Personalized Medicine: Pharmacokinetics. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1660.
5. Foroushani, F.T.; Dzobo, K.; Khumalo, N.P.; Mora, V.Z.; de Mezerville, R.; Bayat, A. Advances in Surface Modifications of the Silicone Breast Implant and Impact on Its Biocompatibility and Biointegration. Biomater. Res. 2022, 26, 80.
6. Hahn, D.; Emoto, C.; Euteneuer, J.C.; Mizuno, T.; Vinks, A.A.; Fukuda, T. Influence of OCT1 Ontogeny and Genetic Variation on Morphine Disposition in Critically Ill Neonates: Lessons From PBPK Modeling and Clinical Study. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2019, 105, 761–768.
7. Ermis, M.; Antmen, E.; Hasirci, V. Micro and Nanofabrication Methods to Control Cell-Substrate Interactions and Cell Behavior: A Review from the Tissue Engineering Perspective. Bioact. Mater. 2018, 3, 355–369.
8. Champaneria, M.C. A Complete History of Breast Reconstruction. In Breast Reconstruction: Art, Science, and New Clinical Techniques; Shiffman, M.A., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 3–39.
9. Baker, J.E.; Boudreau, R.M.; Seitz, A.P.; Gulbins, E.; Edwards, M.; Gobble, R.M. Doxycycline-Coated Silicone Breast Implant Reduces Surgical Site Infections Compared with Standard Gentamycin/Cefazolin/Bacitracin Wash. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2018, 227, S206.
10. Benjamin, D.J.; Berger, J.O. Three Recommendations for Improving the Use of p-Values. Am. Stat. 2019, 73, 186–191.
11. Diamond, G.A.; Kaul, S.J. Prior convictions: Bayesian approaches to the analysis and interpretation of clinical megatrials. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2004, 43, 1929–1939.
12. Wang, K.; Parrott, N.J.; Lavé, T. Embracing the future of medicine with virtual patients. Drug Discov. Today 2025, 30, 104322.
13. Jones, H.M.; Rowland-Yeo, K. Basic Concepts in Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling in Drug Discovery and Development. CPT Pharmacomet. Syst. Pharmacol. 2013, 2, 63.
14. Upton, R.N.; Foster, D.J.R.; Abuhelwa, A.Y. An introduction to physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models. Pediatr. Anesth. 2016, 26, 1036–1046.
15. Ferreira, D.; Barthoulot, M.; Pottecher, J.; Torp, K.D.; Diemunsch, P.; Meyer, N. A consensus checklist to help clinicians interpret clinical trial results analysed by Bayesian methods. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 125, 208–215.
16. Halsey, L.G. The reign of the p-value is over: What alternative analyses could we employ to fill the power vacuum? Biol. Lett. 2019, 15, 20190174. [ Central]
17. Goodman Gabay, A.; Nassar, E.; Toledano, R.; Teldan, Y.; Skorochod, R.; Bdolah-Abram, T.; Maisel Lotan, A.; Binenboym, R.; Gronovich, Y. Does Size Matter? Exploring the Impact of Acellular Dermal Matrix Dimensions on Complications in Immediate Breast Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 2025, 13, e7215.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated.