Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28830851›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2017

Barriers and Facilitators for the Use of a Medical Mobile App to Prevent Work-Related Risks in Pregnancy: A Qualitative Analysis.

Adeline V Velu, Monique Dm van Beukering, Frederieke G Schaafsma, Monique Hw Frings-Dresen, Ben Wj Mol, Joris Am van der Post, Marjolein Kok

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  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. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Adeline V VeluAcademic Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3532-5748
Monique Dm van BeukeringAcademic Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4080-5589
Frederieke G SchaafsmaUniversity Medical Center, Department of Public and Occupational Health/Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5827-7000
Monique Hw Frings-DresenAcademic Medical Center, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4134-4577
Ben Wj MolRobinson Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8337-550X
Joris Am van der PostAcademic Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3311-2116
Marjolein KokAcademic Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9420-2313
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLThe University of Adelaide · AUVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of women participating in the labor market in Europe has increased over the last several decades. At the same time, there is growing evidence that certain conditions of employment during pregnancy may have a negative influence on pregnancy outcomes. In order to better inform pregnant women, we aim to develop an app to help assess the health risk as a result of personal and work-related factors and provide personal advice for these women and their health care providers.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to compose a thematic overview of the perceived facilitators and barriers according to pregnant women, medical professionals, and employers for the use of a mobile app in obstetrical care to prevent occupational-related pregnancy complications.

methodsTwo multidisciplinary focus group meetings with in total 14 participants were conducted with pregnant women, occupational physicians, general practitioners, midwives, obstetricians, and representatives of trade unions and employer organizations. Transcripts were analyzed by qualitatively coding procedures and constant comparative methods.

resultsWe identified 24 potential facilitators and 12 potential barriers for the use of the app in 4 categories: content of the app, the app as a mean to provide information, ease of use, and external factors. The 3 main facilitators identified were the need for a good interaction between the app and the user, apps were viewed as a more practical source of information, and the information should be understandable, according to the existing guidelines, and well-dosed. The 2 main barriers for use were extensive battery and memory use of the smartphone and sending frequent push notifications.

conclusionsThe results of this study are important considerations in the developing process of a medical app implementing a guideline or evidence-based information in practice.

Indexed as

eHealthexposuremHealthmobile appoccupationpregnancyqualitative researchsmartphonework

Identifiers

PMID28830851
PMCPMC5585593
OpenAlexW2750307051

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.