How Gender Influenced the Experience of Using a mHealth Intervention in Rural Mozambique: Secondary Qualitative Analysis of Community Health Worker Survey Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The mixed-gender community health worker (CHW) program in Mozambique is a window into the different experiences that male and female CHWs may face in their work. The objective of this study is to investigate how gender influenced the experiences of community health workers using the PIERS on the Move (POM) mHealth app in Mozambique. Methods: This is a secondary analysis by gender of health care workers involved in the Mozambique Community Level Intervention for Pre-eclampsia (CLIP) cluster randomized trial (NCT01911494). A structured survey with 10 open-ended questions was used to elicit CHW experiences using the POM app. Data collection took place in 2017 after completion of the CLIP trial. This analysis examined emergent themes to consider how experiences may have been shaped by health worker gender. Results: Of the 43 CHWs who used the POM app, there were 31 (72%) women and 12 (28%) men. Gender differences emerged in descriptions of how using POM increased their value and respect by pregnant women and community members. Fifty-eight percent of female CHWs (18/31) said that POM positively influenced their status in the community in comparison to 33% of their male counterparts (4/12). While the small sample sizes, particularly of male CHWs who used POM, preclude conclusions, these findings were supported by qualitative results. Female CHWs tended to elaborate more about community perceptions of their increased value and status as health care providers than male CHWs. Conclusion: CHWs work within existing gender norms. While gender norms are perceived to support the comfort of women to speak to another woman about their maternal and child health issues, gender norms also work against female CHWs as their professionalism may be questioned more than for their male counterparts. CHW's narratives suggested that the mHealth intervention was valued beyond the technology itself because it also added symbolic clinical value and demonstrated a tangible investment in their professional capacities, which may have been especially appreciated by the female CHWs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".