Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25367387›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2014

The medium and the message: fitting sound health promotion methodology into 160 characters.

Megan S C Lim, Cassandra Wright, Margaret E Hellard

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Comparison of Young Adult Female Cancer Survivors Recruited from a Population-Based Cancer Registry to Eligible Survivors.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Megan S C LimBurnet Institute, Centre for Population Health, Melbourne, Australia. lim@burnet.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3136-6761

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Text messaging health promotion projects continue to proliferate due to their relative low-cost, simplicity, non-intrusiveness, and proven effectiveness in several randomized controlled trials. In these past trials, participants have typically been recruited through traditional means, received the text messaging intervention, and then completed evaluation. In this issue of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, Sheoran et al have demonstrated how use of text messaging alone can be a feasible method for all three stages: recruitment, intervention, and evaluation. Use of text messages without any other modes of communication could be a key to population-level dissemination and wider uptake of health promotion messages. However, in the rush to utilize new technologies and in the brevity of 160 characters, it should not be forgotten that quality, rigour, and careful development remain essential in any health promotion practice.

Indexed as

health promotionmobile phoneprogram evaluationtext messaging

Identifiers

PMID25367387
PMCPMC4259983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.