MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097627011 · doi:10.2196/21244

Mobile Phone Access and Implications for Digital Health Interventions Among Adolescents and Young Adults in Zimbabwe: Cross-Sectional Survey

2020· article· en· W3097627011 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aoife M. Doyle, Tsitsi Bandason, Ethel Dauya, Grace McHugh, Chris Grundy, Stefanie Dringus, Chido Dziva Chikwari, Rashida A. Ferrand

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilDepartment for International DevelopmentEuropean CommissionEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials PartnershipWellcome Trust
KeywordsMobile phonePsychological interventionmHealthInternet accessPhoneResidenceThe InternetCross-sectional studyPopulationMedicineDemographyPsychologyEnvironmental healthNursingTelecommunicationsSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mobile phones may help young people (YP) access health information and support health service engagement. However, in low-income settings there is limited knowledge on YP's phone and internet access to inform the feasibility of implementing digital health interventions. OBJECTIVE: We investigated access to information and communication technologies among adolescents and young adults in Zimbabwe. METHODS: A cross-sectional population-based survey was conducted from October to December 2018 among YP aged 13-24 years in 5 communities in urban and peri-urban Harare and Mashonaland East, Zimbabwe. Consenting YP completed a self-completed tablet-based questionnaire on mobile phone ownership and use, and use of the internet. The primary outcome was the proportion who reported owning a mobile phone. Secondary outcomes included phone and internet access and use behavior, and ownership and use of other technological devices. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate factors associated with mobile phone ownership and with internet access, with adjustment for the one-stage cluster sampling design. A priori exploratory variables were age, sex, marital status, and urban/peri-urban residence. RESULTS: A total of 634/719 (88.2%) eligible YP, mean age 18.0 years (SD 3.3) and 62.6% (397/634) females, participated. Of the YP interviewed, 62.6% (396/633; 95% CI 58.5-66.5) reported owning a phone and a further 4.3% (27/633) reported having access to a shared phone. Phone ownership increased with age: 27.0% (43/159) of 13-15-year olds, 61.0% (72/118) of 16-17-year olds, 71.5% (103/144) of 18-19-year olds, and 84.7% (171/202) of 20-24-year olds (odds ratio [OR] 1.4, 95% CI 1.3-1.5) per year increase. Ownership was similar among females and males: 61.0% (236/387; 95% CI 55.6-66.1) versus 64.8% (153/236; 95% CI 57.8-71.2), age-adjusted OR 0.7 (95% CI 0.5-1.1); higher in those with secondary level education compared to primary or no education: 67.1% (346/516; 95% CI 62.6-71.2) versus 26% (21/82; 95% CI 16.4-37.7), age-adjusted OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1-4.8); and similar across other sociodemographic factors. YP reported that 85.3% (361/423) of phones, either owned or shared, were smartphones. Among phone owners, the most commonly used phone app was WhatsApp (71.2%, 282/396), and 16.4% (65/396) reported having ever used their phone to track their health. A total of 407/631 (64.5%; 95% CI 60.3-68.5) currently had access to the internet (used in last 3 months on any device) with access increasing with age (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.2-1.3 per year increase). In age-adjusted analysis, internet access was higher among males, the unmarried, those with a higher level of education, phone owners, and those who had lived in the community for more than 1 year. The aspect of the internet that YP most disliked was unwanted sexual (29.2%, 136/465) and violent (13.1%, 61/465) content. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile phone-based interventions may be feasible in this population; however, such interventions could increase inequity, especially if they require access to the internet. Internet-based interventions should consider potential risks for participants and incorporate skill-building sessions on safe internet and phone use.

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), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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