Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26731401›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Evaluation of a mHealth Data Quality Intervention to Improve Documentation of Pregnancy Outcomes by Health Surveillance Assistants in Malawi: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

Olga Joos, Romesh Silva, Agbessi Amouzou, Lawrence H Moulton, Jamie Perin, Jennifer Bryce, Luke C Mullany

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Olga JoosInstitute for International Programs, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Romesh SilvaInstitute for International Programs, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Agbessi AmouzouInstitute for International Programs, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Lawrence H MoultonInstitute for International Programs, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Jamie PerinInstitute for International Programs, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Jennifer BryceInstitute for International Programs, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Luke C MullanyInternational Center for Maternal and Neonatal Health, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Johns Hopkins University · USUnited Nations Children's Fund · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile community health workers are being recognized as an integral work force with growing responsibilities, increased demands can potentially affect motivation and performance. The ubiquity of mobile phones, even in hard-to-reach communities, has facilitated the pursuit of novel approaches to support community health workers beyond traditional modes of supervision, job aids, in-service training, and material compensation. We tested whether supportive short message services (SMS) could improve reporting of pregnancies and pregnancy outcomes among community health workers (Health Surveillance Assistants, or HSAs) in Malawi. METHODS AND

findingsWe designed a set of one-way SMS that were sent to HSAs on a regular basis during a 12-month period. We tested the effectiveness of the cluster-randomized intervention in improving the complete documentation of a pregnancy. We defined complete documentation as a pregnancy for which a specific outcome was recorded. HSAs in the treatment group received motivational and data quality SMS. HSAs in the control group received only motivational SMS. During baseline and intervention periods, we matched reported pregnancies to reported outcomes to determine if reporting of matched pregnancies differed between groups and by period. The trial is registered as ISCTRN24785657.

conclusionsStudy results show that the mHealth intervention improved the documentation of matched pregnancies in both the treatment (OR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.10-1.55, p<0.01) and control (OR 1.46, 95% CI: 1.11-1.91, p = 0.01) groups relative to the baseline period, despite differences in SMS content between groups. The results should be interpreted with caution given that the study was underpowered. We did not find a statistically significant difference in matched pregnancy documentation between groups during the intervention period (OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.63-1.38, p = 0.74). mHealth applications have the potential to improve the tracking and data quality of pregnancies and pregnancy outcomes, particularly in low-resource settings.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomeCommunity Health WorkersData AccuracyFemaleHumansMalawiMaleOdds RatioOutcome Assessment, Health CarePregnancyTelemedicineText MessagingTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26731401
PMCPMC4701446
OpenAlexW2236378292

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.