MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1919860429 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.4208

Potential Roles of Mhealth for Community Health Workers: Formative Research With End Users in Uganda and Mozambique

2015· article· en· W1919860429 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meelan Thondoo, Daniel Strachan, Maureen Nakirunda, Sozinho Ndima, Abel Muiambo, Karin Källander, Zelee Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineMedical Research CouncilBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsmHealthPsychological interventionThematic analysisFocus groupFormative assessmentCommunity healthShort Message ServicePhoneMedical educationQualitative researchPsychologyApplied psychologyNursingMedicineBusinessPublic healthComputer scienceMarketingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Community health workers are reemerging as an essential component of health systems in low-income countries. However, there are concerns that unless they are adequately supported, their motivation and performance will be suboptimal. mHealth presents an opportunity to improve support for community health workers; however, most interventions to date have been designed through a top-down approach, rarely involve the end user, and have not focused on motivation. OBJECTIVE: To use formative research to explore the views of community health workers in Uganda and Mozambique on the potential role of mHealth in their work delivering integrated community case management of children. METHODS: We conducted 24 in-depth interviews and 5 focus group discussions with community health workers in Uganda and Mozambique. Data were collected on: current phone use, preferred phone and charger characteristics, and perceptions of a range of potential mHealth interventions. Interviews were conducted in the local language, were audio recorded and converted into expanded notes. Interviews were coded for key thematic areas using both deductive and inductive codes. Deductive codes included mHealth's potential impact on motivation and performance. RESULTS: The most salient roles of mHealth in improving performance and motivation were reducing the need for travel, improving efficiency and planning, receiving feedback and information, and improving communication with supervisors and other community health workers. This was mostly through improved voice and short message service (SMS) text communication. Specific components of mHealth interventions that participants felt could improve motivation included increasing their visibility and credibility through branding of phones; providing an SMS response to data submission; and sending SMS messages about the importance of their work and achievements, rather than just reminders or technical messages. Participants identified feasibility issues related to the language of SMS messages, network coverage, and the need for a balance between phone function and battery life. Phones with a dual SIM cards would ameliorate network problems but would reduce battery life. The provision of a solar charger was viewed as beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting formative research with end users is likely to improve mHealth interventions by: (1) identifying interventions that are likely to have the greatest impact and be the most acceptable, (2) developing salient SMS messages, and (3) identifying feasibility issues. mHealth interventions also could have an important impact on health worker motivation, which should be considered by intervention developers and in evaluations, especially as small modifications could have a significant impact. Our study suggests that using phones to improve direct communication should be considered, even when planners aim to focus on the provision of a specific application.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207