MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920221217 · doi:10.2196/11842

Patients’ and Doctors’ Perceptions of a Mobile Phone–Based Consultation Service for Maternal, Neonatal, and Infant Health Care in Bangladesh: A Mixed-Methods Study

2019· article· en· W2920221217 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mafruha Alam, Cathy Banwell, Anna Olsen, Kamalini Lokuge

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian National UniversityAustralian GovernmentUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsMobile phonemHealthMedicinePhoneInfant mortalityHealth careNursingFamily medicineMedical emergencyPsychological interventionEnvironmental healthPopulationTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A mobile-based consultation service, or telehealth, can be used for remote consultations with health care professionals for screening, self-care management, and referral. In rural Bangladesh, where there is high demand for scarce male and even scarcer female doctors, remote consultations may help women seeking maternal and child health care. Aponjon is a mHealth service in Bangladesh that provides weekly voice or text messages to pregnant women, new mothers, and family members on various aspects of maternal, neonatal, and infant health. Subscribers can also access a dedicated 24*7 call center to discuss maternal, neonatal, and infant health or emergencies with medically trained doctors. The service provides advice, primary diagnoses, prescriptions, and referrals to subscriber callers. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the Aponjon service to understand access, acceptability, usability, benefits, and challenges of a mobile phone-based consultation service. METHODS: We conducted call log data analysis for September to November 2015 to understand how many unique subscribers accessed the service, who accessed the service, the geographical distribution of callers, and the purpose of the calls. We also conducted a qualitative exploratory substudy of eight married women and eight married men who were subscribers to and accessed the service during this time to understand their experiences. We interviewed 11 doctors from the same service who provided phone consultations to subscribers. RESULTS: Approximately 3894 unique subscribers accessed the service for single or multiple consultations during the study period; 68.36% (2662/3894) of subscribers were from rural households, and 53.00% (2064/3894) of calls were made by pregnant women or new mothers. Approximately 96.08% (5081/5288) calls were nonurgent, 2.69% (142/5288) semiurgent, and 1.23% (65/5288) urgent. Almost 64.7% (134/207) semiurgent or urgent calls came between 8 PM and 8 AM. Callers found the consultation service trustworthy, cost-effective, and convenient. The doctors dispelled misconceptions and promoted good health care practices, regular health check-ups, and responsible use of medicine. They helped families understand the severity of sicknesses and advised them to seek care at health facilities for semiurgent or urgent conditions. The service lacked a pro-poor policy to support talk times of subscribers from poor households and a proper referral system to help patients find the right care at the right facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Although a regular messaging service is constrained by a one-way communication system, this service using the same platform, gave subscribers access to an abbreviated "consultation" with medical doctors. The consultations provided subscribers with valued medical advice and support, although they were limited in their population reach and their integration into the wider medical system. Further research is required to understand the impact of advice and referral, cost-effectiveness, and willingness to pay for mHealth consultation services, but this research suggests that these services should be supported or even expanded.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.432 · 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

Citations52
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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