Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28679489›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Listening to Communities: Mixed-Method Study of the Engagement of Disadvantaged Mothers and Pregnant Women With Digital Health Technologies.

Sylvia Guendelman, Andrew Broderick, Hmellisa Mlo, Alison Gemmill, David Lindeman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Inequity in Access and Delivery of Virtual Care Interventions: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sylvia GuendelmanMaternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9690-3121
Andrew BroderickCenter for Innovation and Technology in Public Health, Public Health Institute, Oakland, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1452-9979
Hmellisa MloMaternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9020-9304
Alison GemmillDepartment of Demography, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5879-9730
David LindemanCITRIS Health Initiative, The Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) and the Banatao Institute, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5471-5245
University of California, Berkeley · USCenter for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society · USPublic Health Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUS health care providers are increasingly demanding patient engagement with digital health technologies to enroll in care, access personal health information, communicate with providers, and monitor their own health. Such engagement may be difficult for disadvantaged populations who may have limited health literacy, time constraints, or competing priorities.

objectiveWe aimed to understand the extent of adoption and use of digital health tools and to identify key perceived psychological motivators of technology use among disadvantaged first-time pregnant women and mothers of young children.

methodsWe recruited women from health organizations serving low-income communities in the Midwest and on the East and West coasts. A total of 92 women participated in 14 focus groups. During each session, we administered worksheets that measured 3 utilization outcomes: the number of recent Web-based health-seeking activities, current use of digital health-management practices (eg, accessing personal health information, communicating with providers, and scheduling appointments), and potential adoption of digital health-management tools among low users or nonusers. Responses to the worksheets and to a pre-focus group survey on demographics, technology access, and motivators of use were examined to create user profiles. Separate regression models identified the motivators (eHealth literacy, internal health orientation, and trust in digital information) associated with these outcomes. Qualitative data were incorporated to illustrate the worksheet responses.

resultsWhereas 97% of the participants reported that they had searched for health information on the Internet in the past year, 42% did not engage in digital health-management practices. Among the low users and nonusers, 49% expressed interest in future adoption of digital health tools. Web-based health information-seeking activities were associated with digital health-management practices (P<.001). When controlling for covariates, eHealth literacy was positively correlated with the number of Web-based health-seeking activities (beta=.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.07). However, an internal health orientation was a much stronger correlate of digital health-management practices (beta=.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.24), whereas trust in digital information increased the odds of potential adoption (vs no adoption) in adjusted models (OR 5.21, 95% CI 0.84-32.53). Demographic characteristics were not important drivers of digital health use and few differences distinguished use among mothers and pregnant women.

conclusionsSeeking health information on the Internet may be an important gateway toward engaging in digital health-management practices. Notably, different consumer motivators influence digital health tool use. The relative contributions of each must be explored to design tools and interventions that enhance competencies for the management of self and child health among disadvantaged mothers and pregnant women. Unless we address disparities in digital health tool use, benefits from their use will accrue predominantly to individuals with the resources and skills to use technology effectively.

Indexed as

MothersAdultFemaleHealth Information ManagementHealth LiteracyHumansInternetPregnancyResidence CharacteristicsSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineVulnerable Populationsconsumer health informationdigital dividehealth information managementmotherspregnant women

Identifiers

PMID28679489
PMCPMC5517821
OpenAlexW2727427256

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.