| Literature DB >> 32484446 |
Jessica L Watterson1,2, Diego Castaneda3, Caricia Catalani2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antenatal care (ANC) has the potential to improve maternal health, but it remains underutilized and unevenly implemented in many low- and middle-income countries. Increasingly, text messaging programs for pregnant women show evidence that they can improve the utilization of ANC during pregnancy; however, gaps remain regarding how implementation affects outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: antenatal care; mHealth; maternal health; text messages
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32484446 PMCID: PMC7298629 DOI: 10.2196/15890
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Figure 1Map of National Health Service clinics in Upolu, Samoa. Circles indicate a comparison clinic and triangles indicate an intervention clinic.
Description of variables and data sources.
| Variable | Description | Data source |
| Age | Age in years at time of ANCa registration | Medical record or ANC registration book |
| Parity (including current pregnancy) | Total number of pregnancies, including current pregnancy | Medical record |
| Distance from home village to registration clinic (km) | Distance from home village to the clinic where the woman registered for ANC in kilometers (km) | Home village recorded from medical record or ANC registration book, then distance from the registration clinic in km was estimated using Google Maps |
| Married/in partnership | Marital status recorded as married or stable union | Medical record |
| Employed and/or partner employed | Occupation of the pregnant woman and/or husband/partner was recorded, then categorized as being at home or outside the home. If 1+ person worked outside the home, they were categorized as employed | Medical record |
| Gestation at registration (weeks) | Number of weeks pregnant at the time of registration for ANC | Medical record or ANC registration book |
| Number of follow-up antenatal visits attended | Number of visits attended after the first registration visit; dates of subsequent visits were recorded, then counted | Medical record or ANC registration book |
| Intervention group | Enrolled in the intervention group if women were pregnant, over 18 years of age, presented to an intervention clinic for ANC registration, and agreed to participate | Sign-up sheet or registration book from midwives in clinic |
aANC: antenatal care.
Distribution of missing observations across groups.
| Variable | Intention-to-treat, n (%) | Per-protocol, n (%) | ||
|
| Intervention (n=728) | Comparison (n=251) | Intervention (n=552) | Comparison (n=427) |
| Age | 128 (17.6) | 45 (17.9) | 95 (17.2) | 78 (18.3) |
| Parity (including current pregnancy) | 127 (17.4) | 47 (18.7) | 97 (17.6) | 77 (18.0) |
| Distance from home village to registration clinic (km) | 4 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.2) | 3 (0.7) |
| Married/in partnership | 94 (12.9) | 42 (16.7) | 66 (12.0) | 70 (16.4) |
| Employed and/or partner employed | 147 (20.2) | 61 (24.3) | 104 (18.8) | 104 (24.4) |
| Missing any of the above variables | 151 (20.7) | 63 (25.1) | 106 (19.2) | 108 (25.3) |
Figure 2Antenatal care and text message (SMS) intervention registration results (N=979).
Baseline characteristics of intervention and comparison groups.
| Variable | Intention-to-treat | Per-protocol | |||||
|
| Intervention (n=577) | Comparison (n=188) | Intervention (n=446) | Comparison (n=319) | |||
|
| |||||||
|
| Age | 26.7 (6.4) | 27.1 (6.5) | .53 | 26.6 (6.3) | 27.2 (6.5) | .18 |
|
| Parity (including current pregnancy) | 3.2 (2.0) | 3.3 (2.0) | .62 | 3.1 (1.9) | 3.3 (2.1) | .25 |
|
| Distance from home village to registration clinic (km) | 11.9 (13.1) | 6.6 (7.2) | <.001 | 12.3 (13.9) | 8.3 (8.6) | <.001 |
|
| Gestation at registration (weeks) | 27.2 (6.7) | 26.5 (6.0) | .13 | 27.4 (6.5) | 26.6 (6.6) | .10 |
|
| Number of follow-up antenatal visits attended | 2.2 (1.9) | 2.6 (1.7) | .01 | 2.1 (1.7) | 2.5 (1.9) | <.001 |
|
| |||||||
|
| Married/in partnership | 519 (89.9) | 171 (91.0) | .69 | 401 (89.9) | 289 (90.6) | .75 |
|
| Employed and/or partner employed | 405 (70.2) | 89 (47.1) | <.001 | 327 (73.3) | 167 (51.9) | <.001 |
aExcluding missing data.
Comparison of visits attended between intervention and comparison groups, controlling for demographic characteristics.
| Variable | Intention-to-treat | Per-protocol | |||||
|
| IRRa | Robust SE | IRR | Robust SE | |||
| Intervention group | 0.87 | 0.06 | .07 | 0.85 | 0.05 | .004 | |
| Age at registration | 1.01 | 0.01 | .48 | 1.01 | 0.01 | .50 | |
| Married/in partnership | 0.95 | 0.10 | .63 | 0.95 | 0.11 | .67 | |
| Parity | 0.98 | 0.02 | .39 | 0.98 | 0.02 | .37 | |
| Employed and/or partner employed | 0.91 | 0.06 | .15 | 0.92 | 0.07 | .26 | |
| Distance from home village to registration clinic (km) | 1.00 | 0.00 | .38 | 1.00 | 0.00 | .30 | |
| Gestation at registration (weeks) | 0.99 | 0.00 | .001 | 0.99 | 0.00 | .004 | |
| Constant | 3.36 | 0.58 | <.001 | 3.31 | 0.52 | <.001 | |
aIRR: incidence rate ratio.
Quantitative results of survey of implementing midwives (N=7).
| Question | Score, mean (SD) |
| (1) Please rate how easy or difficult it is to register pregnant women for the text messages on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=easy, 5=difficult) | 4.29 (0.76) |
| (2) Please rate how interested you think your patients are in receiving text messages during their pregnancy on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=not interested, 5=very interested) | 3.14 (1.86) |
| (3) Please rate how useful you think this text message program is for your patients on a scale of 1 to 5 (1=not useful, 5=very useful) | 4.00 (1.83) |