ReviewBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Motivating and inhibiting factors influencing the application of mhealth technology in post-abortion care: a review study.
Review in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The FemTech revolution: Unlocking the potential of new technology for optimizing pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries and remote areas.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Design and evaluation of a mobile application for educational purposes and facilitating scientific literature search for students and researchers.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Acceptance and use of mobile health technology in post-abortion care.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Using mobile health in primiparous women: effect on awareness, attitude and choice of delivery type, semi-experimental.Reproductive health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbortion and its complications are challenges that endanger women's health, especially in developing countries. It seems that the application of mhealth technology can be useful as a safe and affordable strategy in post-abortion care. The purpose of this study was to identify factors influencing the use of mhealth technology in post-abortion care.
methodsThis was a review study conducted in 2023 and articles published in English between 2010 and 1st November 2023 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Embase databases as well as Google Scholar. Data were collected using a data extraction form and were analyzed narratively.
resultsThe influencing factors could be divided into the motivating and inhibiting factors. The motivating factors included the subgroups of the individual factors (e.g., saving time), technical factors (e.g., usability), economic factors (e.g., saving costs), and ethico-legal factors (e.g., improving security and confidentiality of the information). Similarly, the inhibiting factors consisted of individual factors (e.g., fear of expressing abortion), technical factors (e.g., a lack of access to the network and the Internet), economic factors (e.g., inappropriate patient financial status), and ethico-legal (e.g., concerns over the security and confidentiality of information).
conclusionThis study underscores the importance of considering various technical and non-technical factors influencing the design and implementation of mHealth technology in post-abortion care. Developers need to address these factors to ensure successful technology adoption and mitigate risks. The findings contribute to the enhancement of women's health and offer insights for future technology acceptance models in the mHealth field.
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.