MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211120222 · doi:10.2196/29214

mHealth-Based Health Promotion Intervention to Improve Use of Maternity Care Services Among Women in Rural Southwestern Uganda: Iterative Development Study

2021· article· en· W3211120222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Esther C. Atukunda, Lynn T. Matthews, Angella Musiimenta, Godfrey Mugyenyi, Samuel Mugisha, Norma C. Ware, Celestino Obua, Mark J. Siedner

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFogarty International Center
KeywordsmHealthAttendanceFocus groupPsychological interventionFormative assessmentMedicineNursingIntervention (counseling)Health careStakeholderGeneral partnershipHealth promotionMedical educationPublic healthFamily medicinePsychologyPublic relationsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Antenatal care (ANC) prevents perinatal morbidity and mortality, but use of these services in Uganda remains low and maternal mortality rates are among the highest in the world. There is growing evidence that mobile health (mHealth) approaches improve timely communication of health-related information and produce positive health behavior change as well as health outcomes. However, there are limited data to guide development of such interventions in settings where ANC attendance and uptake of skilled maternity care are low. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop a novel patient-centered mHealth intervention to encourage and support women to use maternity care services in Mbarara district, southwestern Uganda. METHODS: Using an iterative development approach, we conducted formative stakeholder interviews with 30 women and 5 health care providers (HCPs) to identify preferred key ANC topics and characterize the preferred messaging intervention; developed content for SMS text messaging and audio messaging with the help of 4 medical experts based on the identified topics; designed an app prototype through partnership with an mHealth development company; and pilot-tested the prototype and sought user experiences and feedback to refine the intervention through 3 sets of iterative interviews, a focus group discussion, and 5 cognitive interviews. Qualitative data were coded and analyzed using NVivo (version 12.0; QSR International). RESULTS: Of the 75 women who completed interviews during the development of the prototype, 39 (52%) had at least a primary education and 75 (100%) had access to a mobile phone. The formative interviews identified 20 preferred perinatal health topics, ranging from native medicine use to comorbid disorders and danger signs during pregnancy. In all, 6 additional topics were identified by the interviewed HCPs, including birth preparedness, skilled delivery, male partner's involvement, HCP interaction, immunization, and caring for the baby. Positive audio messaging and SMS text messaging content without authoritative tones was developed as characterized by the interviewed women. The postpilot iterative interviews and focus group discussion revealed a preference for customized messaging, reflecting an individual need to be included and connected. The women preferred short, concise, clear actionable messages that guided, supported, and motivated them to keep alert and seek professional help. Complementary weekly reminders to the women's significant others were also preferred to encourage continuity or prompt the needed social support for care seeking. CONCLUSIONS: We used an iterative approach with diffuse stakeholders to develop a patient-centered audio messaging and SMS text messaging app designed to communicate important targeted health-related information and support rural pregnant women in southwestern Uganda. Involving both HCPs and end users in developing and formulating the mHealth intervention allowed us to tailor the intervention characteristics to the women's preferences. Future work will address the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of this design approach.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.402 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207