Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30389651›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Insights From a Text Messaging-Based Sexual and Reproductive Health Information Program in Tanzania (m4RH): Retrospective Analysis.

Patrick S Olsen, Kate F Plourde, Christine Lasway, Eric van Praag

Registry-linked trialAbstract 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. It is linked to trial NCT05130151 (Using Mobile Technology to Prevent HIV and Related Youth Health Problems), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

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

NCT05130151 nasuspendednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Using Mobile Technology to Prevent HIV and Related Youth Health Problems: Sexual Health, Mental Health and Substance Use in Southwest Uganda

TypeinterventionalSponsorNew York State Psychiatric InstituteRan2023 to 2028Enrolled200ConditionsHIV InfectionsArmsYouth Health SMS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Patrick S OlsenHealth Services Research, Global Health, Population, and Nutrition, FHI 360, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3608-0079
Kate F PlourdeResearch Utilization, Global Health, Population, and Nutrition, FHI 360, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2209-7662
Christine LaswayPalladium: Make It Possible, Health Practice, Americas, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9120-2059
Eric van PraagPublic Health Consultant, Dar es Salaam, United Republic Of Tanzania.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3889-783X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany mobile health (mHealth) interventions have the potential to generate and store vast amounts of system-generated participant interaction data that could provide insight into user engagement, programmatic strengths, and areas that need improvement to maximize efficacy. However, despite the popularity of mHealth interventions, there is little documentation on how to use these data to monitor and improve programming or to evaluate impact.

objectiveThis study aimed to better understand how users of the Mobile for Reproductive Health (m4RH) mHealth intervention engaged with the program in Tanzania from September 2013 to August 2016.

methodsWe conducted secondary data analysis of longitudinal data captured by system logs of participant interactions with the m4RH program from 127 districts in Tanzania from September 2013 to August 2016. Data cleaning and analysis was conducted using Stata 13. The data were examined for completeness and "correctness." No missing data was imputed; respondents with missing or incorrect values were dropped from the analyses.

resultsThe total population for analysis included 3,673,702 queries among 409,768 unique visitors. New users represented roughly 11.15% (409,768/3,673,702) of all queries. Among all system queries for new users, 46.10% (188,904/409,768) users accessed the m4RH main menu. Among these users, 89.58% (169,218/188,904) accessed specific m4RH content on family planning, contraceptive methods, adolescent-specific and youth-specific information, and clinic locations after first accessing the m4RH main menu. The majority of these users (216,422/409,768, 52.82%) requested information on contraceptive methods; fewer users (23,236/409,768, 5.67%) requested information on clinic location. The conversion rate was highest during the first and second years of the program when nearly all users (11,246/11,470, 98.05%, and 33,551/34,830, 96.33%, respectively) who accessed m4RH continued on to query more specific content from the system. The rate of users that accessed m4RH and became active users declined slightly from 98.05% (11,246/11,470) in 2013 to 87.54% (56,696/64,765) in 2016. Overall, slightly more than one-third of all new users accessing m4RH sent queries at least once per month for 2 or more months, and 67.86% (278,088/409,768) of new and returning users requested information multiple times per month. Promotional periods were present for 15 of 36 months during the study period.

conclusionsThe analysis of the rich data captured provides a useful framework with which to measure the degree and nature of user engagement utilizing routine system-generated data. It also contributes to knowledge of how users engage with text messaging (short message service)-based health promotion interventions and demonstrates how data generated on user interactions could inform improvements to the design and delivery of a service, thereby enhancing its effectiveness.

Indexed as

data analysismHealthmobile phoneshort message serviceuser engagement

Identifiers

PMID30389651
PMCPMC6238099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.