| Literature DB >> 30466453 |
Fasil Wagnew1, Getenet Dessie2, Animut Alebel3, Henok Mulugeta3, Yihalem Abebe Belay3, Amanuel Alemu Abajobir4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In low resource circumstances, non-adherence for available health services is a major cause of inefficiency in health care delivery. MHealth has been projected as a possible solution to support women during pregnancy, birth and puerperium period, to increase the uptake of essential maternal services.Entities:
Keywords: FANC; LMICs; MHealth; Phone text messaging; Systematic review and meta-analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30466453 PMCID: PMC6249748 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-018-0635-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Descriptive review of RCT relevant studies on the effect of SMSon pregnant women’s health care services uptake
| Authors | Country | Participants | Outcome | Main finding | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | Control Group | |||||
| Jareethum et al. 2008 [ | Thailand | Pregnant women / Size: Intervention: 32, Control: 29 | Text messaging: twice weekly | routine ANC and advice | Maternal satisfaction | Satisfaction scores of antenatal and perinatal periods were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control |
| Lund et al.,2012 [ | Zanzibar: | Intervension;1311 Control;1239 | Mobile phone text-message, twice a week | routine ANC and advice | Primary outcome: skilled attendance at delivery | The mobile phone intervention significantly |
| T.Fedha,2014 [ | Kenya | Intervension:191 Control:206 | reminded every fortnightly of the next visit to the clinic and given advice on pregnancy updates and advice | Allowed to continue with routine clinics with no mobile advice or updates support | Primary outcome: FANC | mobile telephone service for pregnant mother enhance maternal health care ANC visits (OR: 2.89(1.51–5.53))and skilled birth attendance(OR: 2.73(1.60–4.65)) |
| Lau et al. 2014 [ | South Africa | Size: Intervention: 102, Control: 104 | Text messaging: staggered according to the week of pregnancy | routine ANC and advice | To compare the control and intervention group’s knowledge | No statistically significant difference in score in any of the 9 questions between the intervention and control |
| Lund et al.,2014 [ | Zanzibar: | Intervension;1311 Control;1239 | Mobile phone text-message | routine ANC and advice | Primary outcome: FANC visits -secondary outcome: tetanus vaccination, other preventive services for malaria, etc. | In the Intervention group 44% of the women received four or more antenatal care visits versus 31% in the control group. |
| Atnafu, 2017 [ | Ethiopia | Size; Intervention: 1080, Control: 1080 | SMS based mobile phone intervention in most of the selected MCH service indicators | No SMS | role of mobile phone SMS MCH outcomes | The proportion of mothers receiving more than four ANC visits increased significantly (increased from 5.21% at baseline to 29.75%). |
| India | Intervention: 200 Control: 200 | Mobile phone calls, as reminders about next visit and text messages (SMS) | Control group: women received routine ANC and advice as per hospital protocol. | percentage of pregnant women coming for FANC, percentage of institutional delivery and postnatal check-ups. | Mobile phone intervention significantly increased the percentage of women receiving the recommended four antenatal visits (OR:4.4(2.86–6.77)) and non-significant effect on SBA (OR: 1.33(0.68–259)). |
Fig. 1Flow chart describing selection of studies for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of SMSon FANC visits and skilled birth attendance among pregnant women in LMICs
Fig. 2Forest plot of the 7 RCT studies that quantitatively assessed the effect of mobile phone messaging on maternal healthcare services uptake during pregnancy and at birth
Fig. 3Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Fig. 4Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study
GRADEpro level of quality evidences assessment
| Certainty assessment | № of patients | Effect | Certainty | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| № of studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | phone text messaging | no interventions | Relative (95% CI) | Absolute (95% CI) | |
| FANC visit (assessed with: OR) | |||||||||||
| 3 | Randomized trials | not serious | serious | not serious | not serious | none | 866/1702 (50.9%) | 598/1643 (36.4%) | OR --(1.41 to 5.35) | -- per 1000 (from 83 more to 390 more) | ⨁⨁⨁◯ MODERATE |
| Skilled birth Attendance(assessed with: OR) | |||||||||||
| 3 | Randomized trials | not serious | serious | not serious | not serious | none | 947/1675 (56.5%) | 731/1607 (45.5%) | OR -- (0.80 to 2.78) | -- per 1000 (from 55 fewer to 244 more) | ⨁⨁⨁◯ MODERATE |
CI Confidence interval; OR Odds ratio