MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966844319 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.3165

Integrating Mobile Phones into Medical Abortion Provision: Intervention Development, Use, and Lessons Learned From a Randomized Controlled Trial

2014· article· en· W1966844319 on OpenAlex
Katherine Marianne de Tolly, Deborah Constant

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Cape TownWorld Health Organization
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)AbortionProtocol (science)Medical abortionmHealthMedicineMobile phoneFamily medicineMedical emergencyPsychological interventionMedical educationInternet privacyAlternative medicineNursingComputer sciencePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medical abortion is legal in South Africa but access and acceptability are hampered by the current protocol requiring a follow-up visit to assess abortion completion. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of information and follow-up provided via mobile phone after medical abortion in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Mobile phones were used in three ways in the study: (1) coaching women through medical abortion using short message service (SMS; text messages); (2) a questionnaire to assess abortion completion via unstructured supplementary service data (USSD, a protocol used by GSM mobile telephones that allows the user to interact with a server via text-based menus) and the South African mobile instant message and social networking application Mxit; and (3) family planning information via SMS, mobisite and Mxit. A needs and context assessment was done to learn about women's experiences undergoing medical abortion and their use of mobile phones. After development, the mobile interventions were piloted. Recruitment was done by field workers at the clinics. In the RCT, women were interviewed at baseline and exit. Computer logs were also analyzed. All study participants received standard of care at the clinics. RESULTS: In the RCT, 234 women were randomized to the intervention group. Eight did not receive the intervention due to invalid numbers, mis-registration, system failure, or opt-out, leaving 226 participants receiving the full intervention. Of the 226, 190 returned and were interviewed at their clinic follow-up visit. The SMSs were highly acceptable, with 97.9% (186/190) saying that the SMSs helped them through the medical abortion. In terms of mobile phone privacy, 86.3% (202/234) said that it was not likely or possible that someone would see SMSs on their phone, although at exit, 20% (38/190) indicated that they had worried about phone privacy. Having been given training at baseline and subsequently asked via SMS to complete the self-assessment questionnaire, 90.3% (204/226) attempted it, and of those, 86.3% (176/204) reached an endpoint of the questionnaire. For the family planning information, a preference for SMS was indicated by study clients, although the publicly available Mxit/mobisite was heavily used (813,375 pages were viewed) over the study duration. CONCLUSIONS: SMS provided a good medium for timed, "push" information that guided and supported women through medical abortion. Women were able to perform a self-assessment questionnaire via mobile phones if provided training and prompted by SMS. Phone privacy needs to be protected in similar settings. This study may contribute to the successful expansion of medical abortion provision aided by mobile phones. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR): PACTR201302000427144; http://www.pactr.org/ATMWeb/appmanager/atm/atmregistry?dar=true&tNo=PACTR201302000427144 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6N0fnZfzm).

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.354 · 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