content management systems literature review

The Current State of Component Content Management: An Integrative Literature Review

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

On Mobile Learning with Learning Content Management Systems: A Contemporary Literature Review

• Conference paper
• Cite this conference paper

• Asiimwe Edgar Napoleon 14 &
• Grönlund Åke 14  

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 479))

Included in the following conference series:

• International Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning

2110 Accesses

2 Citations

Learning Content management systems (LCMS) are important tools for organizing learning material and communication. Increasingly mobile technologies are used for internet access; particularly important in developing countries where broadband is scarce. Mobile LCMS introduce specific challenges, which are yet not fully addressed. This paper reviews the literature on mobile LCMS for the purpose of identifying current research focus, research gaps, and future research directions regarding how to bridge the gaps and leverage CMS technology to support “mobile learning”. The concept matrix method is used to collect and analyze literature. Five prominent research areas are found; Use, access, design and infrastructure; communication and collaboration; engagement and knowledge development; content and service delivery; and implementation experiences and evaluation. A major gap identified is that research does neither clearly nor thoroughly address the intersection between learning and technology. Adjusting technologies to learning contexts and environments is a key area for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Alvarez, C., Alarcon, R., Nussbaum, M.: Implementing collaborative learning activities in the classroom supported by one-to-one mobile computing: A design based. The Journal of Systems and Software 84, 1961–1976 (2011)

Article   Google Scholar  

Alavi, M., Carlson, P., Brooke, G.: The Ecology of MIS Research: A Twenty Year Status Review. In: DeGross, J.I., Henderson, J.C., Konsynski, B.R. (eds.) The Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information Systems, Massachusetts, Boston, pp. 363–375 (1989)

Google Scholar  

Celsi, R.L., Wolfinbarger, M.: Discontinuous classroom innovation: Waves of change for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education 24(1), 64–72 (2002)

Chou, C., Peng, H., Chang, C.: The technical framework of interactive functions for course-management systems: Students’ perceptions, uses, and evaluations. Computers & Education 55, 1004–1017 (2010)

Chu, C.W., Lin, H., Lin, X.: Context-Sensitive Content Representation for Mobile Learning. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Advances in Web-Based Learning, Berlin, pp. 349–354 (2005)

Digitalbuzz.: Infographic: Mobile Statistics, Stats & Facts 2011 (2011), http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/2011-mobile-statistics-stats-facts-marketing-infographic/

Digitalbuz.: Infographic: Infographic: 2012 Mobile Growth Statistics (2012), http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/infographic-2012-mobile-growth-statistics/

Ducut, E., Fontelo, P.: Mobile devices in health education: current use and practice. Journal of Computing in High Education 20(2), 59–68 (2008)

Franziska, H., Emil, O.W., Roland, G., Guo, Y., Schwaninger, A.: Using learning content management systems as highly adaptive and efficient supporting tool for (recurrent) training – an applied perspective. In: 43rd Annual International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology, Zurich, pp. 52–58 (2009)

Georgieva, E.: A Comparison Analysis of Mobile Learning Systems. In: International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, CompSysTech 2006 (2006)

Grönlund, Å., Islam, M.Y.: A mobile e-learning environment for developing countries: The Bangladesh Virtual Interactive Classroom. Information Technology for Development 16(4), 244–259 (2010)

Guralnick, D.: Next-generation LCMS design: A user-centered approach. IADIS International Journal on WWW/Internet 2(2), 69–78 (2004)

Jesshope, C., Zhang, Z.: A Content Management System for the TILE Managed Learning Environment. In: The 3rd International Conference on Networked Learning (NLC), pp. 136–143. Sheffield University, UK (2002)

Järvinen, P.: On developing and evaluating of the literature review. In: Workshop on Literature Review in the IRIS31 Conference, Åre, Sweden (2008)

Klopper, R., Lubbe, S., Rugbeer, H.: The Matrix Method of Literature Review. Alternation 14(1), 262–276 (2007)

Kukulska-Hulme, A.: Learning Cultures on the Move: Where are we heading? Educational Technology & Society 13(4), 4–14 (2010)

Kurubacak, G.: Identifying Research Priorities and Needs in Mobile Learning Technologies for Distance Education: A Delphi Study. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 19(3), 216–227 (2007)

Levy, Y., Ellis, T.J.: A Systems Approach to Conduct an Effective Literature Review in Support of Information Systems Research. Informing Science Journal 9, 181–212 (2006)

Liaw, S., Chen, G., Huang, H.: Users’ attitudes toward Web-based collaborative learning systems for knowledge management. Computers & Education 50, 950–961 (2008)

Lonn, S., Teasley, D.S.: Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education 53, 686–694 (2009)

Lonn, S., Teasley, D.S., Krumm, E.A.: Who needs to do what where?: Using learning management systems on residential vs. commuter campuses. Computers & Education 56, 642–649 (2011)

Macdonald, I., Chiu, J.: Evaluating the Viability of Mobile Learning to Enhance Management Training. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 37(1), 1–12 (2011)

McGill, J.T., Klobas, E.J.: A task–technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education 52, 496–508 (2009)

Mbendera, J.A., Kanjo, C., Sun, L.: Towards Development of Personalised Knowledge Construction Model for e-Learning. In: Second International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-line Learning, St. Maarten, Netherlands, pp. 29–35 (2010)

McCabe, D.B., Meuter, L.M.: A Student View of Technology in the Classroom: Does It Enhance the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education? Journal of Marketing Education 33(2), 149–159 (2011)

Michelinakis, D.: Open Source Content Management Systems: An Argumentative Approach. MSc Electronic Business Management thesis report, The University of Warwick (2004)

Mike, M.: Author(ity): The Literature Review as Expert Witnesses. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 4(1), Art. 8 (2003), http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0301187

Monahan, T., McArdle, G., Bertolotto, M.: Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Computers & Education 50, 1339–1353 (2008)

Omar, Y., Ashaari, N.S.: Futuristic model for school’s content management systems: A beginning. In: International Symposium on Information Technology, vol. 3, pp. 1387–1392 (2010)

O’Neill, J.E.: Implementing International Virtual Elementary Classroom Activities for Public School Students in the U.S. and Korea. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning 5(3), 207–218 (2007)

Qwaider, Q.W., Hattab, E.: Learning Content Management System (LCMS) Versus Learning management System. In: 3rd International Conference on Excellent in Education, Research Strategic Planning-Development, Athens, Greece (2010)

Rakkedal, T., Dye, A., Ally, M.: Mobile Distance Learning with PDAs: Development and Testing of Pedagogical and System Solutions Supporting Mobile Distance Learners. ssues in Distance Education series, pp. 51–74. AU press (2009)

Raymond, D., Kanenishi, K., Matsuura, K., Baudin, V., Gayraud, T., Yano, Y., Diaz, M.: A Model for Content and Communication Management in Synchronous Learning. Educational Technology & Society 8(3), 187–205 (2005)

Rengarajan, R.: LCMS and LMS: Taking Advantage of Tight Integration (2001), http://www.e-learn.cz/soubory/lcms_and_lms.pdf

Rivera, A., Candela, S., Garcia, R.C.: WikiDIS: A case of collaborative content management system for educative community. In: IEEE EDUCON 2010 Conference, pp. 601–610 (2010)

Romero, C., Ventura, S., Garcia, E.: Data mining in course management systems: Moodle case study and tutorial. Computers & Education 51, 368–384 (2008)

Solemon, B., Sulaiman, R.: Rapid ELearning Content Management System (RECOMS). International Journal of Computing & Information Sciences 4(1), 1–8 (2006)

Trifonova, A., Ronchetti, M.: Where is Mobile Learning Going? In: Rossett, A. (ed.) Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, pp. 1794–1801. AACE, Chesapeake (2003)

Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26(2), xiii-xxiii (2002)

Westera, W.: On the Changing Nature of Learning Context: Anticipating the Virtual Extensions of the World. Educational Technology & Society 14(2), 201–212 (2011)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Informatics, Business School, Örebro University, Örebro, 701 82, Sweden

Asiimwe Edgar Napoleon & Grönlund Åke

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Welten Institute, Research Centre for Learning, Teaching and Technology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Marco Kalz  & Marcus Specht  & 

Faculty of Education, Department of Foreign Language Education, Bogazici University, 34342, Bebek - Istanbul, Turkey

Yasemin Bayyurt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Napoleon, A.E., Åke, G. (2014). On Mobile Learning with Learning Content Management Systems: A Contemporary Literature Review. In: Kalz, M., Bayyurt, Y., Specht, M. (eds) Mobile as a Mainstream – Towards Future Challenges in Mobile Learning. mLearn 2014. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 479. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13416-1_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13416-1_13

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-13415-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-13416-1

eBook Packages : Computer Science Computer Science (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, utilizing a systematic literature review to develop an integrated framework for information and knowledge management systems.

VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems

ISSN : 2059-5891

Article publication date: 8 May 2017

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the value of using a systematic literature review to develop an integrated framework for information and knowledge management systems.

Design/methodology/approach

First, the systematic literature review method is introduced, differentiating it from traditional literature reviews in terms of value-added and limitations. Second, this methodology is used in a research application focused on absorptive capacity internal capabilities with regard to the processes of acquisition, assimilation, transformation and exploitation. Third, an integrated framework for information and knowledge management systems is developed from this application.

The systematic literature review approach provides a rigor that can assist in reducing researcher bias while simultaneously enabling the definition of a precise scope of review, with a clear explanation of selection criteria with the objective to find and review all the studies that are relevant to the search definitions. As a research method, it effectively supports a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methodology.

Research limitations/implications

This methodology was applied to one specific area of research. Specific limitations include the availability of articles in subscribed databases and the analytical capabilities of the tools used for text mining and analytics.

Originality/value

This paper demonstrates the usefulness of the systematic literature review methodology in developing an integrated framework for analysis.

• Absorptive capacity
• Systematic literature review
• Knowledge management systems
• Information systems
• Integrated framework
• Meta-routines

Senivongse, C. , Bennet, A. and Mariano, S. (2017), "Utilizing a systematic literature review to develop an integrated framework for information and knowledge management systems", VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems , Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 250-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-03-2017-0011

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2017, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Other Journals

An important role for librarians over the next five to ten years is to provide access to online library resources—free, open-access, or purchased, all valuable resources—in an intuitive, easy-to-use one-stop shop and not to be afraid of running a continual beta test in which new services and functions can be added when necessary. To fill this role, librarians and electronic resources managers need flexible, interoperable resource-discovery systems based on open-source software. In addition, we must continue to assess users’ needs and reach out by adapting our systems to fit their requirements, rather than expecting them to come to us; indeed, our very future depends on it. 1

Two decades after the advent of electronic journals and databases, librarians are still grappling with ways to best manage e-resources in conjunction with traditional print resources and at the same time explore new purchasing initiatives and practices, such as demand-driven acquisition of electronic books. In addition, these times of economic austerity are creating budgetary pressures at many institutions of higher education, resulting in librarians having to justify their spending on collections and resource management more than ever.

Techniques for Electronic Resource Management (TERMS) began in 2008 after a discussion about electronic resource management (ERM), current ERM tools, and what was lacking both in current practice and with the systems available. TERMS expands on Pesch’s electronic resources life cycle (see figure 1.1 ) and seeks to become a reference point for those who are new to ERM, those who have suddenly shifted job functions to oversee ERM, and those who may want to implement its recommendations of best practice.

TERMS Tumblr blog http://6terms.tumblr.com TERMS Facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/174086169332439 6TERMS on Twitter https://twitter.com/6terms

• TERMS 1: Investigating New Content for purchase/addition, assigned to Ann Kucera (Baker College, Michigan)
• TERMS 2: Acquiring New Content, assigned to Nathan Hosburgh (Montana State University, Montana)
• TERMS 3: Implementation, assigned to Stephen Buck (Dublin City University, Ireland)
• TERMS 4: Ongoing Evaluation and Access, assigned to Anita Wilcox (University College Cork, Ireland)
• TERMS 5: Annual Review, assigned to Anna Franca (King’s College, London, United Kingdom)
• TERMS 6: Cancellation and Replacement Review, assigned to Eugenia Beh (Texas A&M University, Texas)

TERMS Wiki: Main Page http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Main_Page

In 2012, TERMS was also endorsed by the Knowledge Base + project in the United Kingdom, which has a project deliverable of providing “workflow management tools related to the selection, review, renewal and cancellation of publications” 2 and has also received interest in the United States from GoKB from Kuali OLE (open library environment), “a community of nine research libraries working together to build the first open-source system designed by and for academic and research libraries for managing and delivering intellectual information.” 3

Electronic Resources and Libraries website www.electroniclibrarian.com

One of the first things to note when performing a literature review on ERM is that there are no independent literature reviews solely on this area. Instead, ERM has now become an integral part of standard literature reviews for acquisitions processing, collection development and management, cataloging and classification, and serials management. At the same time, there are areas of ERM that sit outside of these traditional functioning areas in libraries. This makes performing a literature review on ERM more of a challenge.

From the field of library acquisitions, the issues most readily identified in recent years have been the switch from print processing to ERM and the continued struggle to find management tools that work within the local library context. 6

“Simply put, collection management is the systemic, efficient and economic stewardship of library resources.” 7 The term collection development has been with us since the 1960s. 8 However, it is a constantly evolving area, and as the library collection moves from one dominated by print to one dominated by electronic resources, collection development policies may have been patched rather than redesigned to reflect the different emphasis on delivery. In a 2012 study, Mangrum and Pozzebon found that “over half of the libraries tried to address ER [electronic resources] in some way. However, most policies contain traditional language with a section on library ER inserted into the latter portion of the document.” 9

In regard to collection development and management trends, the two biggest growth areas are e-book purchasing and purchase-on-demand or patron-driven acquisition models. There has been an explosion in collection management literature on these two topics over the past three to four years. 10 A single place for best practices, or from which a local library can create its own localized best practices, is definitely needed: “Bleiler and Livingston stressed that a lack of established policies and procedures for assessment puts a library at risk for financial loss and recommended that libraries create selection policies and standardized methods for assessment, train staff for contract negotiation, and share strategies, policies, and best practices.” 11

In addition to changes to the format of delivery of library resources, libraries must also contend with the impact of today’s economic environment. Hazen suggests that libraries need to rethink their collection development in light of these issues and move from collection to collection and content, where content is “a category that encompasses everything to which a library enjoys ready physical or digital access regardless of ownership status [and] is central to all that we do.” 12

In 2001, Jewell reported on the selection, licensing, and support of online materials by research libraries and concluded that several libraries had developed local systems for acquiring, managing, and supporting electronic resources. 13 Jewell’s report was followed in 2004 by a report from the Digital Library Federation’s (DLF) Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI), which “was organized to support the rapid development of such systems by producing a series of interrelated documents to define needs and to help establish data standards.” 14 The report went on to provide a road map for ERM.

On the back end, we continue to rely on methods developed when we had 250 rather than 25,000 eresources. Information on our electronic resources is currently kept in paper files (license agreements), Excel spreadsheets (vendor contact information and administrative passwords), staff web pages (usage statistics), small databases (trial and decision tracking, divisional library resources, technical problem reports), SFX (ejournal holdings), and our ILS (acquisitions and payment data). Few of these systems are connected to each other; in some cases, information is readily accessible only to one or a few individuals, not by intent, but by the limitations of the storage mechanism. Many procedures are not documented and rely on informal channels of communication. 15

More recently there have been a number of open-source and community ERM systems, such as CORAL 16 and CUFTS, developed by Simon Fraser University (SFU) and implemented by SFU and the University of Prince Edward Island, which view this “technology not necessarily as a way of spending less money, but spending money more wisely.” 17

Another growing area of ERM is the work being performed to develop a suite of standards to support the vast amount of access and management knowledge and myriad of tools needed to maintain adequate access to electronic resources. 18 According to Sarah Glasser, “KBART and IOTA are both working to decrease OpenURL link failures that are caused by metadata deficiencies.” In addition, “PIE-J differs from KBART and IOTA because it is not focused on link resolver errors. Formed by NISO in 2010, PIE-J addresses access barriers that arise from the manner in which electronic journals are presented on provider websites.” 19

There has been a lot of discussion about the implementation of ERM systems in recent years. 20 However, use of these systems is still far from ubiquitous, and many academic libraries have yet to implement or even purchase a system. “A risk of ERMS implementations, more talked about than written about … was that the costs (in added work) to maintain a new system would outweigh the value of the added functionality.” 21 Despite early expectations, Collins and Grogg see the current crop of ERM systems as “less like a silver bullet and more like a round of buckshot.” 22

One of the most time-consuming parts of an ERM implementation is analyzing licenses and inputting them into the relevant fields of an ERM system in order for them to be meaningful to librarians and patrons. The University of Northern Colorado has developed an in-house system to perform license mapping that “makes information that is often deeply embedded within a license readily available to library personnel who could use such information in the daily operations of the library. This information is useful to any library that maintains license agreements for electronic resources.” 23

A panel session at the 2010 NASIG conference concluded that the “ERM system at UC has not solved all their problems, but some improvements have been realized. Budget tracking and staffing continue to be challenges. A final determination of the effectiveness will not be evident until the system becomes a part of the general staff workflow and not considered as something extra.” 24

Collins and Grogg cited workflow management as number one in librarians’ top six ERM priorities. They found that “over a third of librarians surveyed prioritized workflow or communications management, and they called it one of the biggest deficiencies (and disappointments) of ERMS functionality.” 25 This area has also been highlighted by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO), which has created a working group, ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review, to undertake a gap analysis regarding ERM. 26

In the United Kingdom, the Managing Electronic Resource Issues (MERI) project at the University of Salford aimed “to produce a use case of ERM systems and a preliminary set of requirements for an electronic resource management system, for use by the University of Salford and other HE institutions and system suppliers.” 27 The requirements document from this project went on to inform the SCONUL shared ERM requirements project. An output of these projects was a set of workflows that describe the various processes involved in managing electronic resources. 28 The University of Huddersfield was one of the sixteen UK universities to take part, and like others, had never actually recorded these workflows until asked to do so by the project. All project members found that by recording workflows, they were able to take advantage of efficiencies discovered as part of documenting the process.

One of the objectives of the TERMS blog and wiki was to collect a number of e-resource workflows from a variety of different types of libraries. Both the University of Huddersfield and Portland State University shared their workflows as part of TERMS. The release of the six TERMS via the blog also encouraged other universities to share their workflows and discuss efficiencies; indeed, “rethinking e-resources workflows and developing practical tools to streamline and enhance various inelegant processes have become the priorities.” 29

Since the launch of the first draft of TERMS, the project has now attracted interest in various workflows from different libraries around the world, including the University of Cork, Duke University, Florida Gulf Coast University, and Texas A&M University.

A recent press release by Jisc in the United Kingdom suggested that international collaboration is needed to transform ERM in libraries—“Many of the concerns libraries have in the management of electronic resources are the same across the world”—and that projects such as GoKB and the Knowledge Base + service in the United Kingdom “are exploring community-based solutions.” 30

TERMS Wiki Investigating New Content for Purchase/Addition http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Investigating_New_Content_for_purchase/addition Acquiring New Content http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Acquiring_New_Content Implementation http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Implementation Ongoing Evaluation and Access http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Ongoing_Evaluation_and_Access Annual Review http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Annual_Review Cancellation and Replacement Review http://library.hud.ac.uk/wikiterms/Cancellation_and_Replacement_Review

• There are currently no refbacks.

MINI REVIEW article

This article is part of the research topic.

Improving Services for Neglected Tropical Diseases: Ending the Years of Neglect

Consequences of geographical accessibility to post-exposure treatment for rabies and snakebite in Africa: a mini review Provisionally Accepted

• 1 University of Geneva, Switzerland

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Rabies and snakebite envenoming are two zoonotic neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) transmitted to humans by animal bites, causing each year around 179,000 deaths and are most prevalent in Asia and Africa. Improving geographical accessibility to treatment is crucial in reducing the time from bite to treatment. This mini review aims to identify and synthesize recent studies on the consequences of distance and travel time on the victims of these diseases in African countries, in order to discuss potential joint approaches for health system strengthening targeting both diseases. A literature review was conducted separately for each disease using Pubmed, Google Scholar, and snowball searching. Eligible studies, published between 2017 and 2022, had to discuss any aspect linked to geographical accessibility to treatments for either disease in Africa.Twenty-two articles (8 on snakebite and 14 on rabies) were eligible for data extraction. No study targeted both diseases. Identified consequences of low accessibility to treatment were classified into 6 categories: 1) Delay to treatment; 2) Outcome; 3) Financial impacts; 4) Underreporting; 5) Compliance to treatment, and 6) Visits to traditional healers.Geographical access to treatment significantly influences the burden of rabies and snakebite in Africa. In line with WHO's call for integrating approaches among NTDs, there are opportunities to model disease hotspots, assess population coverage, and optimize geographic access to care for both diseases, possibly jointly. This could enhance the management of these NTDs and contribute to achieving the global snakebite and rabies roadmaps by 2030.

Keywords: Rabies, Snakebite, Neglected Tropical Desease, Africa, accessibility

Received: 08 Oct 2023; Accepted: 15 May 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Faust and Ray. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Prof. Nicolas Ray, University of Geneva, Geneva, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland

People also looked at