Participants’ Perceptions of Essential Coaching for Every Mother—a Canadian Text Message–Based Postpartum Program: Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND “Essential Coaching for Every Mother” is a Canadian text message–based program that sends daily messages to mothers for 6 weeks after they give birth. There is a need to explore the program’s effectiveness in terms of the participants’ experience to guide refinement and modification. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to describe the process evaluation of the Essential Coaching for Every Mother randomized controlled trial through an evaluation of the research implementation extent and quality. METHODS Participants were recruited from Nova Scotia, Canada, between January 5 and August 1, 2021. Enrolled participants were randomized into the intervention or control group. Participants randomized to the intervention group received standard care along with the Essential Coaching for Every Mother program’s text messages related to newborn and maternal care for the first 6 weeks after giving birth, while the control group received standard care. Usage data were collected from the SMS text message program used, and participants completed web-based questionnaires at 6 weeks after birth. Quantitative data and qualitative responses to open-ended questions were used to triangulate findings. Quantitative data were summarized using means, SDs, and percentages, as appropriate, while qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Of the 295 unique initial contacts, 150 mothers were eligible and completed the baseline survey to be enrolled in the study (intervention, n=78; control, n=72). Of those randomized into the intervention group, 75 (96%) completed the 6-week follow-up survey to provide feedback on the program. In total, 48 (62%) intervention participants received all messages as designed in the Essential Coaching for Every Mother program, with participants who enrolled late missing on average 4.7 (range 1-12) messages. Intervention participants reported an 89% satisfaction rate with the program, and 100% of participants would recommend the program to other new mothers. Participants liked how the program made them feel, the format, appropriate timing of messages, and content while disliking the frequency of messages and gaps in content. Participants also provided suggestions for future improvement. CONCLUSIONS Our process evaluation has provided a comprehensive understanding of interest in the program as well as identified preference for program components. The findings of this study will be used to update future iterations of the Essential Coaching for Every Mother program. CLINICALTRIAL ClincalTrials.gov NCT04730570; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04730570
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 | 0.045 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
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".