Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29759959›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Health Care Professionals' Attitudes Toward, and Experiences of Using, a Culture-Sensitive Smartphone App for Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Qualitative Study.

Lisa Garnweidner-Holme, Therese Hoel Andersen, Mari Wastvedt Sando, Josef Noll, Mirjam Lukasse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Lisa Garnweidner-HolmeInstitute for Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2760-9292
Therese Hoel AndersenInstitute for Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4929-4065
Mari Wastvedt SandoInstitute for Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7037-6650
Josef Noll *Department of Technology Systems, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8168-5552
Mirjam LukasseInstitute for Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9873-4023

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) among women of different ethnic backgrounds provides new challenges for health care professionals, who often find it difficult to provide information about the management of this disease to such individuals. Mobile health (mHealth) may act as a useful tool for blood sugar control and care process enhancement. However, little is known about health care professionals' experiences and attitudes toward the use of mHealth for women with GDM.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore how health care professionals perceived the provision of care to pregnant women who managed their GDM using the culture-sensitive Pregnant+ app in a randomized controlled trial.

methodsIndividual interviews with 9 health care professionals providing care for women with GDM were conducted. Braun and Clark's method of thematic content analysis inspired the analysis. This study included health care professionals who were primarily responsible for providing care to participants with GDM in the Pregnant+ randomized controlled trial at 5 diabetes outpatient clinics in Oslo, Norway.

resultsHealth care professionals perceived mHealth, particularly the Pregnant+ app, as an appropriate tool for the care of women with GDM, who were described as individuals comprising a heterogeneous, motivated group that could be easily approached with health-related information. Some participants reported challenges with respect to provision of advice to women with different food cultures. The advantages of the Pregnant+ app included provision of information that women could access at home, the information provided being perceived as trustworthy by health care professionals, the culture sensitivity of the app, and the convenience for women to register blood sugar levels. Technical problems, particularly those associated with the automatic transfer of blood glucose measurements, were identified as the main barrier to the use of the Pregnant+ app. Strict inclusion criteria and the inclusion of participants who could not speak Norwegian were the main challenges in the recruitment process for the randomized controlled trial.

conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that mHealth is a useful tool to enhance the care provided by health care professionals to women with GDM. Future mobile apps for the management of GDM should be developed by a trustworthy source and in cooperation with health care professionals. They should also be culture sensitive and should not exhibit technical problems.

Indexed as

antenatal careculture sensitivitygestational diabetes mellitusmHealth

Identifiers

PMID29759959
PMCPMC5972202

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.