Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29584773›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

"I am not telling. The mobile is telling": Factors influencing the outcomes of a community health worker mHealth intervention in India.

Onaedo Ilozumba, Marjolein Dieleman, Nadine Kraamwinkel, Sara Van Belle, Murari Chaudoury, Jacqueline E W Broerse

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.9field-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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  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. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Onaedo IlozumbaAthena Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4951-9631
Marjolein DielemanAthena Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nadine KraamwinkelAthena Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sara Van BelleDepartment of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Murari ChaudouryNEEDS NGO, Deoghar, India.
Jacqueline E W BroerseAthena Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLInstituut voor Tropische Geneeskunde · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionImproving maternal health outcomes remains a priority in Low and Middle Income Countries. With the rapid proliferation of mobile health technologies, there is an increased interest in understanding how these technologies can effectively improve maternal health outcomes particularly maternal health seeking knowledge and behaviors. However, few studies present clear explanations of the program developers' rationale (theory of change) and contextual factors that could influence program outcomes. This mixed-methods study assesses Mobile for Mothers, a community health workers (CHW) utilized maternal mHealth intervention. We present the program developers' rationale and utilize it as a framework to guide our study that aimed to identify intervention-related and contextual factors, which influence the observed outcomes of a CHW, utilized mHealth intervention. MATERIALS AND

methodsQuantitative methods (a questionnaire with 740 women who received the intervention and survey of 57 CHWs who utilized the intervention) and qualitative methods (12 interviews and 4 group discussions with CHWs and 20 interviews and 5 group discussions with pregnant and lactating women and 15 interviews and 2 group discussions with men) were conducted. These were used to understand how the mHealth intervention was implemented and to gain insight into contextual factors that potentially influenced the observed intervention outcomes.

resultsResults were grouped following three categories: (1) perceptions and experiences of CHWs utilizing the mHealth technology; (2) CHW-related outcomes; and (3) contextual factors that influence maternal health-seeking behavior. The overall response of CHWs and community members to the intervention was positive. However, contextual factors like the relationship between the CHWs and their respective communities, the pregnant women's decision-making power and lack of access due to financial influenced the observed outcomes.

conclusionMobile health applications are promising interventions for improving the performance of CHWs and health-seeking behavior of pregnant women. However, the contextual factors play a crucial role in intervention outcomes and need to be explicated by program developers during intervention design and implementation.

Indexed as

AdultClinical CompetenceCommunity Health WorkersFemaleHumansIndiaInterviews as TopicMaleMothersPregnancySoftwareSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID29584773
PMCPMC5870994
OpenAlexW2795242467

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.