Sexual and reproductive health mobile apps: results from a cross-sectional values and preferences survey to inform World Health Organization normative guidance on self-care interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile application (app) platforms have the potential to advance sexual and reproductive health (SRH). Yet there is a dearth of knowledge regarding global perspectives from healthcare providers on how SRH mobile apps are being leveraged in their healthcare practice. In 2019 the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a consolidated guideline on self-care interventions for SRH. To inform this guideline, we conducted a global values and preferences survey. This study aimed to (a) understand the awareness, access, and uptake of SRH mobile apps; (b) examine how many healthcare provider (HCP) participants provided linkages, referrals and information to clients regarding SRH mobile apps; and (c) among HCP, assess how many felt confident and informed regarding SRH mobile apps. We hosted a cross-sectional web-based survey on the WHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research website and shared the survey with SRHR listservs. There were 825 survey participants, 360 whom identified as healthcare providers (HCP). Approximately one-third of HCP participants had provided a referral/information to their clients about sexual or reproductive health apps. While 40.8% of HCP felt confident and informed about sexual health apps, half (47.4%) reported needing more information, and 15.6% expressed interest in receiving training to use in practice. While 42.6% of HCPs felt confident and informed about reproductive health apps, 45.7% needed more information, and 15.1% were interested in further training. There was also an open-ended question for HCP to share their thoughts about self-care SRH interventions. Specifically regarding SRH apps, HCP responses revealed the importance of considering: (a) security and confidentiality; (b) potential benefits of SRH apps for underserved groups (i.e. youth, rural communities); (c) community engagement; (d) health benefits; and (e) and online training for HCP on SRH mobile apps. Findings signal interest and opportunities for training and engaging HCP in using mobile apps to advance SRH.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".