Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29116028›Full record

Trial reportReproductive health2017

PRENACEL - a mHealth messaging system to complement antenatal care: a cluster randomized trial.

Lívia Oliveira-Ciabati, Carolina Sales Vieira, Ana Carolina Arruda Franzon, Domingos Alves, Fabiani Spessoto Zaratini, Giordana Campos Braga, Jazmin Andrea Cifuentes Sanchez, Lívia Pimenta Bonifácio, Magna Santos Andrade, Mariana Fernandes and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Reproductive health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Technologies Applied to the Mental Health Care of Pregnant Women: A Systematic Literature Review.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

15 authors.

Lívia Oliveira-CiabatiDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Carolina Sales VieiraDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Ana Carolina Arruda FranzonDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Domingos AlvesDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Fabiani Spessoto ZaratiniDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Giordana Campos BragaDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Jazmin Andrea Cifuentes SanchezDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Lívia Pimenta BonifácioDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Magna Santos AndradeDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Mariana FernandesDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Silvana Maria QuintanaDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Suzi Volpato FabioDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Vicky Nogueira PileggiDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
Elisabeth Meloni VieiraDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.
João Paulo SouzaDepartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil. jp.souza@usp.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to determine whether PRENACEL (a bi-directional, mobile-phone based, short text message service (SMS)) increases the coverage of recommended antenatal care (ANC) practices.

methodsA parallel, cluster-randomized trial in which 20 public primary Health Care Units (PHCUs) were randomly allocated to the intervention (10 PHCUs) or control (10 PHCUs) group. The study population included pregnant women aged 18 or above with a gestational age of 20 weeks or less. Pregnant women receiving ANC in intervention PHCUs were invited through leaflets and posters to register in PRENACEL. Women who registered in PRENACEL received a weekly set of short text messages with health education and health promotion content related to pregnancy and childbirth and were also able to clarify ANC queries through SMS. All women received routine ANC. The primary outcome was the proportion of women with high ANC Score, a composite measure of coverage of recommended ANC practices. Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests and multivariate log-binomial regression were used to analyze the outcomes.

resultsA total of 1210 eligible women received ANC in the participating PHCUs and took part of this study (770 in the intervention group and 440 in the control group). 20.4% (157/770) of intervention-group women registered in PRENACEL, but only 116 read all messages (73.9% of women who registered in PRENACEL, 116/157). The adjusted intention-to-treat analysis suggested no difference between intervention and control groups in the primary outcome (Adjusted Relative Risk (AdjRR): 1.05 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.00-1.09). Both crude and adjusted per-protocol analysis suggested a positive effect of PRENACEL (Crude RR (95% CI): 1.14 (1.06-1.22), AdjRR (95% CI): 1.12 (1.05-1.21). The multivariate analysis also suggests that the PRENACEL group (women who read all SMS) had higher mean ANC score [48.5 (±4.2) vs 45.2 (±8.7), p < 0.01], higher proportion of women with ≥6 ANC visits (96.9% vs. 84.8%, p = 0.01), and higher rates of syphilis testing (40.5% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.03) and HIV testing (46.6% vs. 25.7%, p < 0.01) during ANC.

conclusionsA bi-directional, mobile-phone based, short text message service is potentially useful to improve the coverage of recommended ANC practices, including syphilis and HIV testing.

trial registrationClinical trial registry: RBR-54zf73 , U1111-1163-7761.

Indexed as

Text MessagingAdolescentAdultBrazilCell PhoneFemaleHealth EducationHealth PromotionHumansPregnancyPrenatal CarePrimary Health CareTelemedicineYoung AdultAdherenceAntenatalmHealthPregnancySyphilisText messaging

Identifiers

PMID29116028
PMCPMC5678588

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.