Experiences of community health workers on adopting mHealth in rural Malawi: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The use of mobile health technology (mHealth) by community health workers (CHWs) can strengthen community-based service delivery and improve access to and quality of healthcare. Objective This qualitative study sought to explore experiences and identify factors influencing the use of an integrated smartphone-based mHealth called YendaNafe by CHWs in rural Malawi. Methods Using pre-tested interview guides, between August and October 2022, we conducted eight focus group discussions with CHWs ( n = 69), four in-depth interviews with CHW supervisors, and eight key informant interviews in Neno District, Malawi. We audio-recorded and transcribed the interviews verbatim and organized them for analysis in Dedoose V9.0.62. We used an inductive analysis technique to analyze the data. We further applied the six domains of the socio-technical system (STS) framework to map factors influencing the use of YendaNafe. Results User experiences and facilitators and barriers were the two main themes that emerged. mHealth was reported to improve the task efficiency, competence, trust, and perceived professionalism of CHWs. CHWs less frequently referred to cultural factors influencing app uptake. However, for other social systems, they identified relationships and trust with stakeholders, availability of training and programmatic support, and performance monitoring and feedback as influencing the use of YendaNafe. From the STS technical domain, the availability and adequacy of hardware such as phones, mobile connectivity, and usability influenced the use of YendaNafe. Conclusions Despite the initial discomfort, CHWs found mHealth helpful in supporting their service delivery tasks. Identifying and addressing social and technical factors during mHealth implementation may help improve end users’ attitudes and uptake.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".