A Systematic Review of Apps using Mobile Criteria for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention (mCAPP)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Adolescents in the United States and globally represent a high-risk population for unintended pregnancy, which leads to high social, economic, and health costs. Access to smartphone apps is rapidly increasing among youth, but little is known about the strategies that apps employ to prevent pregnancy among adolescents and young adults. Further, there are no guidelines on best practices for adolescent and young adult pregnancy prevention through mobile apps. OBJECTIVE: This review developed a preliminary evaluation framework for the assessment of mobile apps for adolescent and young adult pregnancy prevention and used this framework to assess available apps in the Apple App Store and Google Play that targeted adolescents and young adults with family planning and pregnancy prevention support. METHODS: We developed an assessment rubric called Mobile Criteria for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention (mCAPP) for data extraction using evidence-based and promising best practices from the literature. mCAPP comprises 4 domains: (1) app characteristics, (2) user interface features, (3) adolescent pregnancy prevention best practices, and (4) general sexual and reproductive health (SRH) features. For inclusion in the review, apps that advertised pregnancy prevention services and explicitly mentioned youth, were in English, and were free were systematically identified in the Apple App Store and Google Play in 2015. Screening, data extraction, and 4 interrater reliability checks were conducted by 2 reviewers. Each app was assessed for 92 facets of the mCAPP checklist. RESULTS: Our search returned 4043 app descriptions in the Apple App Store (462) and Google Play (3581). After screening for inclusion criteria, 22 unique apps were included in our analysis. Included apps targeted teens in primarily developed countries, and the most common user interface features were clinic and health service locators. While app strengths included provision of SRH education, description of modern contraceptives, and some use of evidence-based adolescent best practices, gaps remain in the implementation of the majority of adolescent best practices and user interface features. Of the 8 best practices for teen pregnancy prevention operationalized through mCAPP, the most commonly implemented best practice was the provision of information on how to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy (15/22), followed by provision of accurate information on pregnancy risk of sexual behaviors (13/22); information on SRH communication, negotiation, or refusal skills (10/22); and the use of persuasive language around contraceptive use (9/22). CONCLUSIONS: The quality and scope of apps for adolescent pregnancy prevention varies, indicating that developers and researchers may need a supportive framework. mCAPP can help researchers and developers consider mobile-relevant evidence-based best practices for adolescent SRH as they develop teen pregnancy prevention apps. Given the novelty of the mobile approach, further research is needed on the impact of mCAPP criteria via mobile channels on adolescent health knowledge, behaviors, and outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,025 | 0,122 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,024 | 0,021 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».