The MomConnect Nurses and Midwives Support Platform (NurseConnect): A Qualitative Process Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, mobile health has steadily increased in low-income and middle-income countries. However, few platforms have been able to sustainably scale up like the MomConnect program in South Africa. NurseConnect was created as a capacity building component of MomConnect, aimed at supporting nurses and midwives in maternal and child health. The National Department of Health has committed to expanding NurseConnect to all nurses across the country, and an evaluation of the current user experience was conducted to inform a successful scale up. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the perception and use of NurseConnect by nurses and midwives to produce feedback that can be used to optimize the user experience as the platform continues to scale up. METHODS: We conducted focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with 110 nurses and midwives from 18 randomly selected health care facilities across South Africa. Questions focused on mobile phone use, access to medical information and their experience with NurseConnect registration, as well as the content and different platforms. RESULTS: All participants had mobile phones and communication through calls and messaging was the main use in both personal and work settings. Of 110 participants, 108 (98.2%) had data-enabled phones, and the internet, Google, and apps (South African National Department of Health Guidelines, iTriage, Drugs.com) were commonly used, especially to find information in the work setting. Of 110 participants, 62 (56.4%) were registered NurseConnect users and liked the message content, especially listeriosis and motivational messages, which created behavioral change in some instances. The mobisite and helpdesk, however, were underutilized because of a lack of information surrounding these platforms. Some participants did not trust medical information from websites and had more confidence in apps, while others associated a "helpdesk" with a call-in service, not a messaging one. Many of the unregistered participants had not heard of NurseConnect, and some cited data and time constraints as barriers to both registration and uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile and smartphone penetration was very high, and participants often used their phone to find medical information. The NurseConnect messages were well-liked by all registered participants; however, the mobisite and helpdesk were underutilized owing to a lack of information and training around these platforms. Enhanced marketing and training initiatives that optimize existing social networks, as well as the provision of data and Wi-Fi, should be explored to ensure that registration improves, and that users are active across all platforms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.102 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".