20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing the perspectives of users and beneficiaries of a community health worker mHealth tracking system for mothers and children in Rwanda

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Mobile Health (mHealth) programs have increasingly been used to tackle maternal and child health problems in low and middle income countries. However, few studies have evaluated how these programs have been perceived by intended users and beneficiaries. Therefore, we explored perceptions of healthcare officials and beneficiaries regarding RapidSMS Rwanda, an mHealth system used by Community Health Workers (CHWs) that was scaled up nationwide in 2013.

          Methods

          We conducted key informant interviews and focus group discussions with key stakeholders, providers, and beneficiaries of maternal and child health services at both the national and community levels. Semi-structured interviews were used to assess perceptions about the impact of and challenges facing the RapidSMS system. Interviews and focus group discussions were recorded (with the exception of one), transcribed verbatim, and analyzed.

          Results

          We conducted a total of 28 in-depth interviews and 10 focus group discussions (93 total participants). A majority of respondents believed that RapidSMS contributed to reducing maternal and child mortality rates. RapidSMS was generally accepted by both CHWs and parents. Participants identified insufficient training, a lack of equipment, and low CHW motivation as the main challenges facing RapidSMS.

          Conclusion

          Our findings suggest that an mHealth program can be well accepted by both policymakers, health providers, and the community. We also found significant technical challenges that have likely reduced its impact. Addressing these challenges will serve to strengthen future mHealth programs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Assessing the Effect of mHealth Interventions in Improving Maternal and Neonatal Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

          Introduction Maternal and neonatal mortality remains high in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Availability and use of mobile phones is increasing rapidly with 90% of persons in developing countries having a mobile-cellular subscription. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have been proposed as effective solutions to improve maternal and neonatal health. This systematic review assessed the effect of mHealth interventions that support pregnant women during the antenatal, birth and postnatal period in LMIC. Methods The review was registered with Prospero (CRD42014010292). Six databases were searched from June 2014–April 2015, accompanied by grey literature search using pre-defined search terms linked to pregnant women in LMIC and mHealth. Quality of articles was assessed with an adapted Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Because of heterogeneity in outcomes, settings and study designs a narrative synthesis of quantitative results of intervention studies on maternal outcomes, neonatal outcomes, service utilization, and healthy pregnancy education was conducted. Qualitative and quantitative results were synthesized with a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis. Results In total, 3777 articles were found, of which 27 studies were included: twelve intervention studies and fifteen descriptive studies. mHealth interventions targeted at pregnant women increased maternal and neonatal service utilization shown through increased antenatal care attendance, facility-service utilization, skilled attendance at birth, and vaccination rates. Few articles assessed the effect on maternal or neonatal health outcomes, with inconsistent results. Conclusion mHealth interventions may be effective solutions to improve maternal and neonatal service utilization. Further studies assessing mHealth’s impact on maternal and neonatal outcomes are recommended. The emerging trend of strong experimental research designs with randomized controlled trials, combined with feasibility research, government involvement and integration of mHealth interventions into the healthcare system is encouraging and can pave the way to improved decision making on best practice implementation of mHealth interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Effectiveness of mHealth interventions for maternal, newborn and child health in low– and middle–income countries: Systematic review and meta–analysis

            Objective To assess the effectiveness of mHealth interventions for maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) in low– and middle–income countries (LMIC). Methods 16 online international databases were searched to identify studies evaluating the impact of mHealth interventions on MNCH outcomes in LMIC, between January 1990 and May 2014. Comparable studies were included in a random–effects meta–analysis. Findings Of 8593 unique references screened after de–duplication, 15 research articles and two conference abstracts met inclusion criteria, including 12 intervention and three observational studies. Only two studies were graded at low risk of bias. Only one study demonstrated an improvement in morbidity or mortality, specifically decreased risk of perinatal death in children of mothers who received SMS support during pregnancy, compared with routine prenatal care. Meta–analysis of three studies on infant feeding showed that prenatal interventions using SMS/cell phone (vs routine care) improved rates of breastfeeding (BF) within one hour after birth (odds ratio (OR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27–2.75, I2 = 80.9%) and exclusive BF for three/four months (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.26–2.50, I2 = 52.8%) and for six months (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.46–3.68, I2 = 0.0%). Included studies encompassed interventions designed for health information delivery (n = 6); reminders (n = 3); communication (n = 2); data collection (n = 2); test result turnaround (n = 2); peer group support (n = 2) and psychological intervention (n = 1). Conclusions Most studies of mHealth for MNCH in LMIC are of poor methodological quality and few have evaluated impacts on patient outcomes. Improvements in intermediate outcomes have nevertheless been reported in many studies and there is modest evidence that interventions delivered via SMS messaging can improve infant feeding. Ambiguous descriptions of interventions and their mechanisms of impact present difficulties for interpretation and replication. Rigorous studies with potential to offer clearer evidence are underway.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Effectiveness of mHealth Interventions Targeting Health Care Workers to Improve Pregnancy Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

              Background Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face the highest burden of maternal and neonatal deaths. Concurrently, they have the lowest number of physicians. Innovative methods such as the exchange of health-related information using mobile devices (mHealth) may support health care workers in the provision of antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes in LMICs. Objective We conducted a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of mHealth interventions targeting health care workers to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes in LMIC. Methods The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health Library, and Popline were searched using predetermined search and indexing terms. Quality assessment was performed using an adapted Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat analysis was performed for each included paper. Results A total of 19 studies were included for this systematic review, 10 intervention and 9 descriptive studies. mHealth interventions were used as communication, data collection, or educational tool by health care providers primarily at the community level in the provision of antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care. Interventions were used to track pregnant women to improve antenatal and delivery care, as well as facilitate referrals. None of the studies directly assessed the effect of mHealth on maternal and neonatal mortality. Challenges of mHealth interventions to assist health care workers consisted mainly of technical problems, such as mobile network coverage, internet access, electricity access, and maintenance of mobile phones. Conclusions mHealth interventions targeting health care workers have the potential to improve maternal and neonatal health services in LMICs. However, there is a gap in the knowledge whether mHealth interventions directly affect maternal and neonatal outcomes and future research should employ experimental designs with relevant outcome measures to address this gap.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                7 June 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 6
                : e0198725
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda
                [2 ] The Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, School of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
                [3 ] Ministry of Health, Kigali, Rwanda
                [4 ] UNICEF Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda
                [5 ] Department of Health Sciences, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
                [6 ] School of Dentistry, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda
                [7 ] Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, UBC, Vancouver, BC, Canada
                [8 ] Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America
                Columbia University, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: We have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests. EG is employed by the Rwanda Ministry of Health. AB is employed by UNICEF Rwanda. However, their participation does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0538-275X
                Article
                PONE-D-17-31910
                10.1371/journal.pone.0198725
                5991741
                29879186
                b53b0399-2e27-4e73-aa41-a4363fe25a8d
                © 2018 Musabyimana et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 30 August 2017
                : 22 May 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 12
                Funding
                Funded by: UNICEF Rwanda
                This study was funded by a research grant from United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Rwanda. A steering committee composed of the University-based Researchers, UNICEF representatives, and the Rwanda Ministry of Health provided input from the inception through to publication of this analysis. However, final decisions on the study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, and the content of the manuscript were made by the University-based researchers. https://www.unicef.org/rwanda/about_17120.html.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pediatrics
                Child Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Child Health
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Africa
                Rwanda
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Supervisors
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Population Biology
                Population Metrics
                Death Rates
                Engineering and Technology
                Equipment
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Maternal Health
                Pregnancy
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Women's Health
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Pregnancy
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Developmental Biology
                Neonates
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data underlying the current study findings are within the paper. Also, de-identified data would not guarantee the anonymity of our informant. For ethical reasons raw data were not made publicly available. Access to these raw data may be facilitated upon request to the corresponding author or the University of Rwanda IRB at researchcenter@ 123456ur.ac.rw .

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article