MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411473238 · doi:10.2196/60819

Mobile Health Intervention Tools Promoting HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Among Adolescent Girls and Young Women in Sub-Saharan Africa: Scoping Review

2025· article· en· W4411473238 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alex Emilio Fischer, Homaira Hanif, Jacob B Stocks, Aimee E Rochelle, Karen Dominguez, Eliana G Armora Langoni, H. Luz McNaughton Reyes, Gustavo F. Doncel, Kathryn E. Muessig

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthPsychological interventionMedicineTelehealthFamily medicineIntervention (counseling)Adolescent healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Young adultTelemedicineHealth careGerontologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2022, 3100 adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa experienced new HIV infections each week. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective at preventing HIV but has limited uptake and persistence. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions can improve medication adherence; however, their utility to improve PrEP adherence among adolescent girls and young women is not well established. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review synthesizes evidence supporting mHealth for PrEP among adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa and identifies strategies for further evaluation. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Google Scholar databases, expert referrals, and reference lists using the following eligibility criteria: (1) original research study or protocol; (2) English language; (3) publication between January 1, 2012, and August 31, 2023; (4) inclusion of adolescent girls and young women; (5) conducted in sub-Saharan Africa; and (6) use of mHealth tools to promote PrEP uptake, adherence, or persistence. Titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent researchers. Full-text manuscripts were reviewed against all eligibility criteria to determine the final included studies. The characteristics and results of the included studies were abstracted and synthesized by mHealth tool type. RESULTS: The search identified 482 unique citations. Title and abstract review removed 380 citations primarily for not including adolescent girls and young women or being conducted outside sub-Saharan Africa. The remaining 102 articles underwent full-text review, yielding 31 eligible publications reporting on 21 unique studies. The most common mHealth tool was SMS text message (n=11), followed by app (n=9), telehealth (n=3), website (n=4), and video (n=1). Few publications evaluated effectiveness, and the results were mixed. One study found that SMS text message reminders improved PrEP adherence, and another concluded that SMS text message reminders did not show a significant impact. Two studies found that differentiated service delivery, which included mHealth components, improved PrEP uptake or persistence; however, the findings could not be attributed solely to the mHealth components. Lastly, 1 website was shown to improve PrEP persistence. Several earlier-stage studies focused on values and preferences toward mHealth without reporting the impact on PrEP. CONCLUSIONS: We found few rigorously evaluated mHealth interventions for supporting PrEP among adolescent girls and young women, preventing the ability to draw conclusions on its effectiveness. Studies documented high usability and acceptability but limited assessment of the impact on health outcomes. Secondary uses of mHealth were found for data collection and components of the standard of care. There is substantial room for growth in the innovative use of mHealth to support PrEP among adolescent girls and young women. Consideration of the strengths and limitations of mHealth tools in the local setting, review of past lessons learned, and intentional measurement of mHealth exposure and use could help advance this growing field.

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)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.384 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→