ArticlePloS one2018
Assessing the perspectives of users and beneficiaries of a community health worker mHealth tracking system for mothers and children in Rwanda.
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 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers associated with the implementation, adoption, scale-up and sustainability of mHealth in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review guided by the NASSS Framework.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Contextual success and pitfalls of mHealth service for maternal and child health in Africa: An Intervention, Context, Actors, Mechanism, and Outcome (ICAMO) framework guided systematic review of qualitative evidence.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating the Adoption of mHealth Technologies by Community Health Workers to Improve the Use of Maternal Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- Multilevel determinants of community health workers for an effective maternal and child health programme in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
- Health workers' perceptions and experiences of using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- The Impact of the Use of e-Partogram on Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- The Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile Application for Oral Health Education Among Adults in Rwanda.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2024Article
- Types, reporting and acceptability of community-based interventions for stillbirth prevention in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Digital Health Technologies for Maternal and Child Health in Africa and Other Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Cross-disciplinary Scoping Review With Stakeholder Consultation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Healthcare Workers' Perspectives of mHealth Adoption Factors in the Developing World: Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Use of mHealth tools to register birth outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
- Explaining the impact of mHealth on maternal and child health care in low- and middle-income countries: a realist synthesis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Combining the theory of change and realist evaluation approaches to elicit an initial program theory of the MomConnect program in South Africa.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Effect of a community health worker mHealth monitoring system on uptake of maternal and newborn health services in Rwanda.Global health research and policy · 2019Article
- Effects of scaling up various community-level interventions on child mortality in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania: a modeling study.Global health research and policy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMobile Health (mHealth) programs have increasingly been used to tackle maternal and child health problems in low and middle income countries. However, few studies have evaluated how these programs have been perceived by intended users and beneficiaries. Therefore, we explored perceptions of healthcare officials and beneficiaries regarding RapidSMS Rwanda, an mHealth system used by Community Health Workers (CHWs) that was scaled up nationwide in 2013.
methodsWe conducted key informant interviews and focus group discussions with key stakeholders, providers, and beneficiaries of maternal and child health services at both the national and community levels. Semi-structured interviews were used to assess perceptions about the impact of and challenges facing the RapidSMS system. Interviews and focus group discussions were recorded (with the exception of one), transcribed verbatim, and analyzed.
resultsWe conducted a total of 28 in-depth interviews and 10 focus group discussions (93 total participants). A majority of respondents believed that RapidSMS contributed to reducing maternal and child mortality rates. RapidSMS was generally accepted by both CHWs and parents. Participants identified insufficient training, a lack of equipment, and low CHW motivation as the main challenges facing RapidSMS.
conclusionOur findings suggest that an mHealth program can be well accepted by both policymakers, health providers, and the community. We also found significant technical challenges that have likely reduced its impact. Addressing these challenges will serve to strengthen future mHealth programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.