MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394999573 · doi:10.2196/53614

Stimulating Preconception Care Uptake by Women With a Vulnerable Health Status Through a Mobile Health App (Pregnant Faster): Pilot Feasibility Study

2024· article· en· W4394999573 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sharissa M Smith, Babette Bais, Hafez Ismaili M’hamdi, Maartje Schermer, Régine P.M. Steegers‐Theunissen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZonMw
KeywordsPregnancyMedicinemHealthSocioeconomic statusHealth literacyIntervention (counseling)Health careGerontologyReproductive healthFamily medicineEnvironmental healthNursingPopulationPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A low socioeconomic status is associated with a vulnerable health status (VHS) through the accumulation of health-related risk factors, such as poor lifestyle behaviors (eg, inadequate nutrition, chronic stress, and impaired health literacy). For pregnant women, a VHS translates into a high incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes and therefore pregnancy-related inequity. We hypothesize that stimulating adequate pregnancy preparation, targeting lifestyle behaviors and preconception care (PCC) uptake, can reduce these inequities and improve the pregnancy outcomes of women with a VHS. A nudge is a behavioral intervention aimed at making healthy choices easier and more attractive and may therefore be a feasible way to stimulate engagement in pregnancy preparation and PCC uptake, especially in women with a VHS. To support adequate pregnancy preparation, we designed a mobile health (mHealth) app, Pregnant Faster, that fits the preferences of women with a VHS and uses nudging to encourage PCC consultation visits and engagement in education on healthy lifestyle behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test the feasibility of Pregnant Faster by determining usability and user satisfaction, the number of visited PCC consultations, and the course of practical study conduction. METHODS: Women aged 18-45 years, with low-to-intermediate educational attainment, who were trying to become pregnant within 12 months were included in this open cohort. Recruitment took place through social media, health care professionals, and distribution of flyers and posters from September 2021 until June 2022. Participants used Pregnant Faster daily for 4 weeks, earning coins by reading blogs on pregnancy preparation, filling out a daily questionnaire on healthy lifestyle choices, and registering for a PCC consultation with a midwife. Earned coins could be spent on rewards, such as fruit, mascara, and baby products. Evaluation took place through the mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ), an additional interview or questionnaire, and assessment of overall study conduction. RESULTS: Due to limited inclusions, the inclusion criterion "living in a deprived neighborhood" was dropped. This resulted in the inclusion of 47 women, of whom 39 (83%) completed the intervention. In total, 16 (41%) of 39 participants visited a PCC consultation, with their main motivation being obtaining personalized information. The majority of participants agreed with 16 (88.9%) of 18 statements of the MAUQ, indicating high user satisfaction. The mean rating was 7.7 (SD 1.0) out of 10. Points of improvement included recruitment of the target group, simplification of the log-in system, and automation of manual tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Nudging women through Pregnant Faster to stimulate pregnancy preparation and PCC uptake has proven feasible, but the inclusion criteria must be revised. A substantial number of PCC consultations were conducted, and this study will therefore be continued with an open cohort of 400 women, aiming to establish the (cost-)effectiveness of an updated version, named Pregnant Faster 2. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/45293.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207