Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29768407›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

The Health-e Babies App for antenatal education: Feasibility for socially disadvantaged women.

Julia A Dalton, Dianne Rodger, Michael Wilmore, Sal Humphreys, Andrew Skuse, Claire T Roberts, Vicki L Clifton

Abstract 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 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Breastfeeding Apps: A Descriptive Report.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

7 authors.

Julia A DaltonRobinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Dianne RodgerDepartment of Anthropology and Development Studies, School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Michael WilmoreDepartment of Media Studies, School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Sal HumphreysDepartment of Media Studies, School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Andrew SkuseDepartment of Anthropology and Development Studies, School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Claire T RobertsRobinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Vicki L CliftonRobinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4892-6748

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of mobile technology such as phone applications (apps) has been proposed as an efficient means of providing health and clinical information in a variety of healthcare settings. We developed the Health-e Babies app as an Android smart phone application for pregnant women attending a tertiary hospital in a low socio-economic community, with the objective of providing health information about early pregnancy that would increase maternal confidence and reduce anxiety. Based on our earlier research, this form of health communication was viewed as a preferred source of information for women of reproductive age. However, the pilot study had a poor participation rate with 76% (n = 94) not completing the study requirements. These initial findings raised some very important issues in relation to the difficulties of engaging women with a pregnancy app. This paper analyses the characteristics of the participants who did not complete the study requirements in an attempt to identify potential barriers associated with the implementation of a pregnancy app.

methodsThis retrospective review of quantitative and qualitative data collected at the commencement of the Health-e Babies App trial, related to the participant's communication technology use, confidence in knowing where to seek help and mental health status, maternal-fetal attachment and parenting confidence. Engagement and use of the Health-e Babies App was measured by the completion of a questionnaire about the app and downloaded data from participant's phones. Mental health status, confidence and self-efficacy were measured by questionnaires.

resultsAll women were similar in terms of age, race, marital status and level of education. Of the 94 women (76%) who did not complete the trial, they were significantly more anxious as indicated by State Trait Anxiety Inventory (p = 0.001 Student T-test) and more likely to be unemployed (50% vs 31%, p = 0.012 Student T-Test).

conclusionThis study provides important information about the challenges associated with the implementation of a pregnancy app in a socially disadvantaged community. The data suggests that factors including social and mental health issues, financial constraints and technological ability can affect women's engagement with a mobile phone app.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicAdultCell PhoneFemaleHumansInfant HealthMobile ApplicationsPregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal EducationRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesVulnerable PopulationsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29768407
PMCPMC5955503

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.