MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322583980 · doi:10.2196/44661

Expectant Parents’ Preferences for Teaching by Texting: Development and Usability Study of SmartMom

2023· article· en· W4322583980 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jennifer B Murray, Alexander Sharp, Sarah Munro, Patricia A. Janssen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFP7 Coordination of Research ActivitiesBC Children's Hospital
KeywordsFocus groupAttendanceThematic analysismHealthUsabilityTelemedicineMedicineRegretReproductive healthPhoneMedical educationPsychologyQualitative researchNursingHealth carePopulationPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prenatal education encourages healthy behavioral choices and reduces rates of adverse birth outcomes. The use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies during pregnancy is increasing and changing how pregnant people acquire prenatal education. SmartMom is an evidence-based prenatal education SMS text messaging program that overcomes barriers to prenatal class attendance, including rural or remote location, cost, stigma among participants, lack of instructors, and cessation of classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore perceived information needs and preferences for the content and structure of prenatal education mHealth programs among persons enrolled in or eligible to enroll in SmartMom. METHODS: This was a qualitative focus group study conducted as part of a development and usability study of the SmartMom program. Participants were older than 19 years of age, Canadian residents, fluent in English, and either currently pregnant or pregnant within the last year. We asked open-ended questions about information-seeking behaviors during pregnancy, the nature of the information that participants were seeking, how they wanted to receive information, and if SmartMom was meeting these needs. Focus groups took place via videoconference technology (Zoom) between August and December 2020. We used reflexive thematic analysis to identify themes that emerged from the data and the constant comparison method to compare initial coding to emerging themes. RESULTS: We conducted 6 semistructured focus groups with 16 participants. All participants reported living with a partner and owning a cell phone. The majority (n=13, 81%) used at least 1 app for prenatal education. Our analysis revealed that "having reliable information is the most important thing" (theme 1); pregnant people value inclusive, local, and strength-based information (theme 2); and SMS text messages are a simple, easy, and timely modality ("It was nice to have that [information] fed to you"; theme 3). Participants perceived that SmartMom SMS text messages met their needs for prenatal education and were more convenient than using apps. SmartMom's opt-in supplemental message streams, which allowed users to tailor the program to their needs, were viewed favorably. Participants also identified that prenatal education programs were not meeting the needs of diverse populations, such as Indigenous people and LGBTQIA2S+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning, intersex, asexual, Two-Spirit plus) communities. CONCLUSIONS: The shift toward digital prenatal education, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has resulted in a plethora of web- or mobile technology-based programs, but few of these have been evaluated. Participants in our focus groups revealed concerns about the reliability and comprehensiveness of digital resources for prenatal education. The SmartMom SMS text messaging program was viewed as being evidence-based, providing comprehensive content without searching, and permitting tailoring to individual needs through opt-in message streams. Prenatal education must also meet the needs of diverse populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→