scholarly journals The Impact of Mobile Health Interventions on Antenatal and Postnatal Care Utilization in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Meta-Analysis

Cureus ◽  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Poonam Yadav ◽  
Ravi Kant ◽  
Surekha Kishore ◽  
Shruti Barnwal ◽  
Meenakshi Khapre
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Kant ◽  
Poonam Yadav ◽  
Surekha Kishore ◽  
Shruti Barnwal ◽  
Rajesh Kumar ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of mHealth interventions on antenatal and postnatal care utilization in low and middle-income countries.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysisSettingStudies from low and middle-income countries were included for analysis.ParticipantsWe searched the literature through major electronic databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, Clinical key, Google Scholar, Ovid databases with selected keywords, and explored the reference list of articles. Meta-analysis was performed in RevMan 5.4 software; p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The effect of variables was measured in the Odds ratio with a fixed-effect model. Six published interventional studies were selected as per the eligibility and PICO framed for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Search restricted to articles in the English language, online published, and preprint articles till September 2020.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe evaluated the effectiveness of mHealth intervention on antenatal care utilization, including four antenatal check-ups, iron-folic acid supplementation, two tetanus toxoid immunizations, and postnatal care utilization, which includes postnatal check-ups of delivered mothers.ResultsResults have been presented in the form of a forest plot. Findings of this meta-analysis depicted the significant increase in four or more antenatal care attendance (OR=1.89, 95% CI-1.49-2.19), TT immunization (OR=1.63 (95% CI-1.17-2.27), compliance to iron supplementation (OR=1.88, 95% CI-1.18-3.00) and postnatal care attendance (OR=2.54 (95% CI-2.15-2.99) among those pregnant mothers who received mHealth intervention compared to control group.ConclusionThis meta-analysis concluded that m-health has the potential to increase the utilization of full antenatal care and postnatal care compared to standard care, although the level of evidence is moderate.Trial registrationCRD42020204618, PROSPERO, International prospective register of systematic reviewsArticle SummaryStrengths and limitations of this studyThis meta-analysis creates an evidence for the effectiveness of mHealth with pooled data of interventional studies with limited sample sizes.Technology is changing, but even with limited support like SMS, there was an improvement in antenatal and postnatal service utilization.Sensitivity analysis identified possible reasons for heterogeneity among studies.Studies included from LMICs so results can be generalized for the respective population.mHealth as an intervention is a broad term that created heterogeneity also.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth K Kirkwood ◽  
Caitlin Clymer ◽  
Kheminda Imbulana ◽  
Sumaya Mozumder ◽  
Michael John Dibley ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND The rapid, widespread growth of mobile technologies, in low-and-middle-income countries, can offer groundbreaking ways to disseminate public health interventions. However, gender-based inequalities present a challenge for women to access mobile technology. Research has shown that mHealth interventions can impact gender relations in positive and negative ways, yet few mHealth programs use a gender sensitive lens when designing, implementing, or analyzing programs. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to identify and summarize the findings of qualitative research studies which explore the impact of mobile health interventions on gender relations as a result of participating in such initiatives in low-and-middle income countries. METHODS We performed a systematic literature review to examines empirical evidence of changes in gender relations attributed to their participation in an mHealth intervention in a low-and-middle income country. Peer-reviewed articles included needed to evaluate an mHealth intervention and were published between 2013 and 2020. Articles were excluded that used mHealth that solely targeted health workers, did not assess a specific intervention or used mobile technology for data collection only or were formative or exploratory in nature. The search terms were entered into four key electronic databases, Medline, Excerpta Médica Database (EMBASE), PsycINFO, and Scopus generating a comprehensive list of potentially relevant peer-reviewed articles. Thematic analysis was used to identify, analyze, and report themes emerged from our data. RESULTS From the 578 full text articles retrieved, fourteen articles were eligible for inclusion. None of the articles appraised gender from the outset. Articles uncovered findings on gender relations through the course of the intervention or post program evaluation. Most studies took place in Sub-Saharan Africa with the remainder in South and South East Asia. Articles focused on maternal and child health, HIV diagnosis and treatment, and reproductive health. This review found mHealth programs could enhance spousal communication, foster emotional support between couples, improve women’s self-efficacy and autonomy in seeking health information and services, and increase involvement in health-related decision making. Despite the positive impacts, some mHealth interventions had an adverse effect, reinforcing the digital divide, upholding men as gatekeepers of information and sole decision makers and exacerbating relationship problems. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest given the rapid, persistent upscale of mobile health interventions in low-and-middle income settings, it is imperative to design interventions that consider the impact they may have on power dynamics and gender relations. Future research is needed to fill evidence gaps on gender and mHealth, acknowledging that women are not passive beneficiaries and need to actively participate and be empowered by mHealth interventions. CLINICALTRIAL The systematic review is registered with Prospero (CRD42021218001)


2015 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-270G ◽  
Author(s):  
Étienne V Langlois ◽  
Malgorzata Miszkurka ◽  
Maria Victoria Zunzunegui ◽  
Abdul Ghaffar ◽  
Daniela Ziegler ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Justine Dol ◽  
Marsha Campbell-Yeo ◽  
Gail Tomblin Murphy ◽  
Megan Aston ◽  
Douglas McMillan ◽  
...  

BMJ ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 348 (apr15 6) ◽  
pp. g2267-g2267 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. K. Gough ◽  
E. E. M. Moodie ◽  
A. J. Prendergast ◽  
S. M. A. Johnson ◽  
J. H. Humphrey ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document