Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35273055›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Assessing the reliability of phone surveys to measure reproductive, maternal and child health knowledge among pregnant women in rural India: a feasibility study.

Angela Ng, Diwakar Mohan, Neha Shah, Kerry Scott, Osama Ummer, Sara Chamberlain, Aarushi Bhatnagar, Diva Dhar, Smisha Agarwal, Rajani Ved and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03576157 (Impact Evaluation of Maternal Health Information Messaging in India), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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.

NCT03576157 nacompletednot on this map

Impact Evaluation of Maternal Health Information Messaging in India

TypeinterventionalSponsorJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthRan2018 to 2021Enrolled5,095ConditionsBreast Feeding, Family Planning, Essential Newborn Care, Training of Frontline Health WorkersArmsKilkari
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Angela NgDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA angelang1201@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-1872-6665
Diwakar MohanDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7532-366X
Neha ShahDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9450-604X
Kerry ScottDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3597-9637
Osama UmmerOxford Policy Management, New Delhi, Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4189-5328
Sara ChamberlainBBC Media Action, New Delhi, Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0003-4785-6482
Aarushi BhatnagarHealth, Nutrition and Population, World Bank New Delhi Office, New Delhi, India.
Diva DharThe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Smisha AgarwalDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Rajani VedNational Health Systems Resource Centre, New Delhi, Delhi, India.
Amnesty Elizabeth LeFevreDivision of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-8437-7240
Kilkari Impact Evaluation Team
Johns Hopkins University · USAction for ME · GBGates Foundation · USNational Health Systems Resource Centre · INUniversity of Cape Town · ZAWorld Health Organization - India · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEfforts to understand the factors influencing the uptake of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child health and nutrition (RMNCH&N) services in high disease burden low-resource settings have often focused on face-to-face surveys or direct observations of service delivery. Increasing access to mobile phones has led to growing interest in phone surveys as a rapid, low-cost alternatives to face-to-face surveys. We assess determinants of RMNCH&N knowledge among pregnant women with access to phones and examine the reliability of alternative modalities of survey delivery.

participantsWomen 5-7 months pregnant with access to a phone.

settingFour districts of Madhya Pradesh, India.

designCross-sectional surveys administered face-to-face and within 2 weeks, the same surveys were repeated among two random subsamples of the original sample: face-to-face (n=205) and caller-attended telephone interviews (n=375). Bivariate analyses, multivariable linear regression, and prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa scores are presented.

resultsKnowledge scores were low across domains: 52% for maternal nutrition and pregnancy danger signs, 58% for family planning, 47% for essential newborn care, 56% infant and young child feeding, and 58% for infant and young child care. Higher knowledge (≥1 composite score) was associated with older age; higher levels of education and literacy; living in a nuclear family; primary health decision-making; greater attendance in antenatal care and satisfaction with accredited social health activist services. Survey questions had low inter-rater and intermodal reliability (kappa<0.70) with a few exceptions. Questions with the lowest reliability included true/false questions and those with unprompted, multiple response options. Reliability may have been hampered by the sensitivity of the content, lack of privacy, enumerators' and respondents' profile differences, rapport, social desirability bias, and/or enumerator's ability to adequately convey concepts or probe.

conclusionsPhone surveys are a reliable modality for generating population-level estimates data about pregnant women's knowledge, however, should not be used for individual-level tracking. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03576157.

Indexed as

Cell PhonePregnant PeopleChildChild HealthCross-Sectional StudiesFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansIndiaInfantInfant, NewbornPregnancyReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTelephonecommunity child healthmaternal medicineneonatal intensive & critical care

Identifiers

PMID35273055
PMCPMC8915337
OpenAlexW4220672231

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.