MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4288072841 · doi:10.2196/32757

First-time Mothers’ Understanding and Use of a Pregnancy and Parenting Mobile App (The Baby Buddy App): Qualitative Study Using Appreciative Inquiry

2022· article· en· W4288072841 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Bailey, Samantha Nightingale, Nicky Thomas, Dawn Coleby, Toity Deave, Trudy Goodenough, Samuel Ginja, Raghu Lingam, Sally Kendall, Crispin Day, Jane Coad

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of the West of EnglandNewcastle University
Mots-clésThematic analysisFocus groupQualitative researchPsychological interventionmHealthPregnancyPsychologyAppreciative inquiryDevelopmental psychologyNursingIntervention (counseling)MedicineMedical educationSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Internationally, there is increasing emphasis on early support for pregnant women to optimize the health and development of mothers and newborns. To increase intervention reach, digital and app-based interventions have been advocated. There are growing numbers of pregnancy health care apps with great variation in style, function, and objectives, but evidence about impact on pregnancy well-being and behavior change following app interaction is lacking. This paper reports on the qualitative arm of the independent multicomponent study exploring the use and outcomes of first-time mothers using the Baby Buddy app, a pregnancy and parenting support app, available in the National Health Service App Library and developed by a UK child health and well-being charity, Best Beginnings. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand when, why, and how first-time mothers use the Baby Buddy app and the perceived benefits and challenges. METHODS: This paper reports on the qualitative arm of an independent, longitudinal, mixed methods study. An Appreciative Inquiry qualitative approach was used with semistructured interviews (17/60, 28%) conducted with new mothers, either by telephone or in a focus group setting. First-time mothers were recruited from 3 study sites from across the United Kingdom. Consistent with the Appreciative Inquiry approach, mothers were prompted to discuss what worked well and what could have been better regarding their interactions with the app during pregnancy. Thematic analysis was used, and findings are presented as themes with perceived benefits and challenges. RESULTS: The main benefit, or what worked well, for first-time mothers when using the app was being able to access new information, which they felt was reliable and easy to find. This led to a feeling of increased confidence in the information they accessed, thus supporting family and professional communication. The main challenge was the preference for face-to-face information with a health care professional, particularly around specific issues that they wished to discuss in depth. What could have been improved included that there were some topics that some mothers would have preferred in more detail, but in other areas, they felt well-informed and thus did not feel a need to seek additional information via an app. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study included a small sample, it elicited rich data and insights into first-time mothers' app interactions. The findings suggest that easily accessible pregnancy information, which is perceived as reliable, can support first-time mothers in communicating with health care professionals. Face-to-face contact with professionals was preferred, particularly to discuss specific and personalized needs. Further studies on maternal and professional digital support preferences after the COVID-19 global pandemic and how they facilitate antenatal education and informed decision-making are recommended, particularly because digital solutions remain as a key element in pregnancy and early parenting care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1017/S1463423618000294.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,073

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,005
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,254
Tête enseignante GPT0,495
Écart entre enseignants0,240 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations22
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR mhealth and uhealthMême sujetMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTravaux en français237 207