MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285415435 · doi:10.2196/32330

The Role of mHealth Interventions in Changing Gender Relations: Systematic Review of Qualitative Findings

2022· review· en· W4285415435 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Kirkwood, Caitlin Clymer, Kheminda Imbulana, Sumaya Mozumder, Michael J. Dibley, Ashraful Alam

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthPsycINFOPsychological interventionThematic analysisScopusMEDLINEPsychologyQualitative researchMedicineMedical educationNursingPolitical scienceSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The rapid and widespread growth of mobile technologies in low- and middle-income countries can offer groundbreaking ways of disseminating public health interventions. However, gender-based inequalities present a challenge for women in accessing mobile technology. Research has shown that mobile health (mHealth) interventions can affect gender relations in both positive and negative ways; however, few mHealth programs use a gender-sensitive lens when designing, implementing, or analyzing programs. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to identify and summarize the findings of qualitative research studies that explore the impact of mHealth interventions on gender relations as a result of participating in such initiatives in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review to examine empirical evidence of changes in gender relations attributed to participation in an mHealth intervention in low- and middle-income countries. Peer-reviewed articles were included based on whether they evaluated an mHealth intervention and were published between 2013 and 2020. Articles using mHealth that solely targeted health workers, did not assess a specific intervention, used mobile technology for data collection only, or were formative or exploratory in nature were excluded. The search terms were entered into 4 key electronic databases-MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Scopus-generating a comprehensive list of potentially relevant peer-reviewed articles. Thematic analysis was used to identify, analyze, and report the themes that emerged from our data. RESULTS: Of the 578 full-text articles retrieved, 14 (2.4%) were eligible for inclusion in the study. None of the articles appraised gender from the outset. The articles uncovered findings on gender relations through the course of the intervention or postprogram evaluation. Most studies took place in sub-Saharan Africa, with the remainder in South and Southeast Asia. The articles focused on maternal and child health, HIV diagnosis and treatment, and reproductive health. This review found that mHealth programs could enhance spousal communication, foster emotional support between couples, improve women's self-efficacy and autonomy in seeking health information and services, and increase their involvement in health-related decision-making. Despite the positive impacts, some mHealth interventions had an adverse effect, reinforcing the digital divide, upholding men as gatekeepers of information and sole decision-makers, and exacerbating relationship problems. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that given the rapid and persistent upscale of mHealth interventions in low- and middle-income settings, it is imperative to design interventions that consider their impact on power dynamics and gender relations. Future research is needed to fill the evidence gaps on gender and mHealth, acknowledging that women are not passive beneficiaries and that they need to actively participate and be empowered by mHealth interventions.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207