Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34468323›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Consumer Perspectives on Maternal and Infant Health Apps: Qualitative Content Analysis.

Rizwana Biviji, Karmen S Williams, Joshua R Vest, Brian E Dixon, Theresa Cullen, Christopher A Harle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

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

6 authors.

Rizwana BivijiScience of Healthcare Delivery, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3286-3332
Karmen S WilliamsGraduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, City University of New York, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6545-8299
Joshua R VestDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Richard M Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7226-9688
Brian E DixonCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1121-0607
Theresa CullenCenter for Biomedical Informatics, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8730-5688
Christopher A HarleDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4803-3632

Funding

The Indiana Training Program in Public & Population Health InformaticsT15LM012502 · NLM · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI Brian E. Dixon, William F Fadel · 2017 to 2026
$4.7M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM012502
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the popularity of maternal and infant health mobile apps, ongoing consumer engagement and sustained app use remain barriers. Few studies have examined user experiences or perceived benefits of maternal and infant health app use from consumer perspectives.

objectiveThis study aims to assess users' self-reported experiences with maternal and infant health apps, perceived benefits, and general feedback by analyzing publicly available user reviews on two popular app stores-Apple App Store and Google Play Store.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative assessment of publicly available user reviews (N=2422) sampled from 75 maternal and infant health apps designed to provide health education or decision-making support to pregnant women or parents and caregivers of infants. The reviews were coded and analyzed using a general inductive qualitative content analysis approach.

resultsThe three major themes included the following: app functionality, where users discussed app features and functions; technical aspects, where users talked about technology-based aspects of an app; and app content, where users specifically focused on the app content and the information it provides. The six minor themes included the following: patterns of use, where users highlighted the frequency and type of use; social support, where users talked about receiving social support from friends, family and community of other users; app cost, where users talked about the cost of an app within the context of being cost-effective or a potential waste of money; app comparisons, where users compared one app with others available in app stores; assistance in health care, where users specifically highlighted the role of an app in offering clinical assistance; and customer care support, where users specifically talked about their interaction with the app customer care support team.

conclusionsUsers generally tend to value apps that are of low cost and preferably free, with high-quality content, superior features, enhanced technical aspects, and user-friendly interfaces. Users also find app developer responsiveness to be integral, as it offers them an opportunity to engage in the app development and delivery process. These findings may be beneficial for app developers in designing better apps, as no best practice guidelines currently exist for the app environment.

Indexed as

Infant HealthMobile ApplicationsDelivery of Health CareFamilyFemaleHealth EducationHumansInfantPregnancymaternal and infant healthmHealthmobile applicationsmobile phonesmartphones

Identifiers

PMID34468323
PMCPMC8444044

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.