Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36595530›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Usability and acceptance of a mobile health wallet for pregnancy-related healthcare: A mixed methods study on stakeholders' perceptions in central Madagascar.

Etienne Lacroze, Anna Frühauf, Kim Nordmann, Zavaniarivo Rampanjato, Nadine Muller, Jan-Walter De Neve, Ralisimalala Andriamampianina, Elsa Rajemison, Till Bärnighausen, Samuel Knauss and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Etienne LacrozeGlobal Digital Health Lab, Charité Global Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3533-7597
Anna FrühaufGlobal Digital Health Lab, Charité Global Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Kim NordmannGlobal Digital Health Lab, Charité Global Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Zavaniarivo RampanjatoMinistry of Public Health of the Republic of Madagascar, Antananarivo, Madagascar.
Nadine MullerGlobal Digital Health Lab, Charité Global Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jan-Walter De NeveHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Medical Faculty and University Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0090-8249
Ralisimalala AndriamampianinaNational Institute of Public and Community Health, Antananarivo, Madagascar.
Elsa RajemisonHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Medical Faculty and University Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Till BärnighausenHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Medical Faculty and University Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Samuel KnaussGlobal Digital Health Lab, Charité Global Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Julius Valentin EmmrichGlobal Digital Health Lab, Charité Global Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3393-0840

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral sub-Saharan African countries use digital financial services to improve health financing, especially for maternal and child health. In cooperation with the Malagasy Ministry of Health, the NGO Doctors for Madagascar is implementing a mobile health wallet for maternal health care in public-sector health facilities in Madagascar. Our aim was to explore the enabling and limiting factors related to the usability and acceptance of the Mobile Maternal Health Wallet (MMHW) intervention during its implementation.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, mixed methods study with mothers and pregnant women and facility- (FBHWs) and community-based (CHWs) health workers from public-sector health facilities in three districts of the Analamanga region in Madagascar. We used a convergent design in collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. We performed one-stage proportional sampling of women who had signed up for the MMHW. All FBHWs and CHWs at primary care facilities in the intervention area were eligible to participate. RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE: 314 women, 76 FBHWs, and 52 CHWs were included in the quantitative survey. Qualitative data were extracted from in-depth interviews with 12 women and 12 FBHWs and from six focus group discussions with 39 CHWSs. The MMHW intervention was accepted and used by health workers and women from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Main motivations for women to enroll in the intervention were the opportunity to save money for health (30.6%), electronic vouchers for antenatal ultrasound (30.2%), and bonus payments upon reaching a savings goal (27.9%). Main motivation for health workers was enabling pregnant women to save for health, thus encouraging facility-based deliveries (57.9%). Performance-based payments had low motivational value for health workers. Key facilitators were community sensitization, strong women-health worker relationship, decision making at the household level, and repetitive training on the use of the MMHW. Key barriers included limited phone ownership, low level of digital literacy, disinformation concerning the effects of the intervention, and technical problems like slow payout processes.

Indexed as

Pregnant PeopleTelemedicineChildCommunity Health WorkersCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansMadagascarPregnancyQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID36595530
PMCPMC9810191

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.