| Literature DB >> 35980731 |
Larske M Soepnel1,2,3, Michelle C McKinley4, Sonja Klingberg1, Catherine E Draper1, Alessandra Prioreschi1, Shane A Norris1,3,5, Lisa J Ware1,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social messaging strategies such as SMS text messaging and radio are promising avenues for health promotion and behavior change in low- to middle-income settings. However, evidence of their acceptability, feasibility, and impact in the context of young women's health and micronutrient deficiencies is lacking.Entities:
Keywords: SMS text messaging intervention; adherence; behavioral; mHealth; micronutrient supplements; mobile health; mobile phone; preconception health; radio serial
Year: 2022 PMID: 35980731 PMCID: PMC9437786 DOI: 10.2196/37309
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Form Res ISSN: 2561-326X
Figure 1Timeline of SMS text messaging feasibility study and airing of the radio serial in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa. HeLTI: Healthy Life Trajectory Initiative.
Main outcomes and data sources for the study.
| Objective | Main question addressed | Data source | |||
|
| |||||
|
| Acceptability |
To what extent was the intervention delivery agreeable and acceptable to participants? | Qualitative data from FGDsa with participants | ||
|
| Usability and interaction |
To what extent could the intervention be used and was the intervention used adequately by the participants? | Data log of the number of participants using the 2-way SMS text messaging system throughout the 6-month intervention; qualitative data from FGDs with participants | ||
|
| Perceived benefit |
What were the perceived benefits of the intervention? Were there any unintended consequences of the intervention? | Qualitative data from FGDs with participants | ||
|
| Fidelity of intervention delivery |
To what extent was the intervention delivered as designed? | Log of messages received, airtime received, and technical errors | ||
|
| Cost of intervention delivery |
What costs were associated with intervention delivery? | Log of cost of intervention | ||
|
| Indicative effect |
What are the indicative effects of the intervention on self-reported adherence, attitudes toward micronutrient supplements, and hemoglobin level at follow-up? | Quantitative baseline and follow-up hemoglobin values; quantitative surveys of attitudes to micronutrient supplements at follow-up | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Acceptability |
To what extent was the intervention delivery agreeable and acceptable to participants? To what extent had participants been exposed to the radio serial? | Qualitative data from FGDs with participants | ||
aFGD: focus group discussion.
Figure 2Overview of study participants during the feasibility study. HeLTI: Healthy Life Trajectory Initiative.
Baseline characteristics of participants from Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative Bukhali assigned to the SMS text messaging or SMS text messaging control groups in the SMS text messaging intervention study (N=240).
| Characteristics | All | Receiving SMS text messages (n=120) | SMS text messaging control (n=120) | |||||||||||
| Age (years), median (IQR) | 21.5 (19-24) | 22 (20-25) | 21 (19-24) | .07 | ||||||||||
| Hemoglobin altitude adjusted (g/dL), median (IQR) | 12.4 (11.7-13.6) | 12.2 (11.5-13.2) | 12.6 (12.1-13.8) | <.001b | ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
| ≥12 | 166 (69.2) | 70 (58.3) | 96 (80) | .001b | |||||||||
|
| 7-11.9 | 72 (30) | 48 (40) | 24 (2) | .001b | |||||||||
|
| <7 | 2 (0.8) | 2 (1.7) | 0 (0) | .001b | |||||||||
|
| BMI, median (IQR) | 23.7 (20.8-28.1) | 24.4 (21.3-29.1) | 22.6 (20.2-27.8) | .05 | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
| Underweight | 21 (8.8) | 8 (6.7) | 13 (10.8) | .18 | |||||||||
|
| Normal weight | 124 (51.7) | 58 (48.3) | 66 (55.0) | .18 | |||||||||
|
| Overweight or obese | 95 (39.6) | 54 (45.0) | 41 (34.2) | .18 | |||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
|
| Not at all | 1 (0.6) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.8) | .24 | ||||||||
|
|
| Somewhat sure | 11 (6.4) | 6 (5.3) | 5 (8.8) | .24 | ||||||||
|
|
| Very or extremely sure | 159 (93) | 108 (94.7) | 51 (89.5) | .24 | ||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
|
| Not at all | 4 (2.3) | 2 (1.8) | 2 (3.5) | .67 | ||||||||
|
|
| Somewhat sure | 28 (16.4) | 20 (17.5) | 8 (14) | .67 | ||||||||
|
|
| Very or extremely sure | 139 (81.3) | 92 (80.7) | 47 (82.5) | .67 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
|
| 0 | 132 (55.2) | 59 (49.6) | 73 (60.8) | .21 | ||||||||
|
|
| 1 | 76 (31.8) | 42 (35.3) | 34 (28.3) | .21 | ||||||||
|
|
| ≥2 | 31 (13.0) | 18 (15.1) | 13 (10.8) | .21 | ||||||||
|
| Born in South Africa | 239 (99.6) | 119 (99.2) | 120 (100) | .32 | |||||||||
|
| Unemployed (and not studying) | 184 (76.7) | 99 (82.5) | 85 (70.8) | .03b | |||||||||
|
| Graduated high school | 145 (60.4) | 64 (53.3) | 81 (67.5) | .03b | |||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
|
| At risk (1) | 55 (22.9) | 29 (24.2) | 26 (21.7) | .71 | ||||||||
|
|
| Food insecure (≥2) | 86 (35.8) | 40 (33.3) | 46 (38.3) | .71 | ||||||||
|
| Current frequent smoker | 30 (12.5) | 15 (12.5) | 15 (12.5) | .49 | |||||||||
|
| Smoked in the past year | 54 (22.5) | 23 (19.2) | 31 (25.8) | .22 | |||||||||
aTotal sample n=171; SMS text messaging group n=114; SMS text messaging control group n=57.
bIndicates a statistically significant difference between the SMS text message–receiving and control groups at P<.05 using a Mann-Whitney U test for continuous outcomes and chi-square statistic or Fisher exact test (if cell count <5) for categorical outcomes.
cTotal sample n=239; SMS text messaging group n=119; SMS text messaging control group n=120.
Qualitative evaluation of the acceptability of the Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative Bukhali SMS text messaging interventiona.
| Acceptability | Quotes | ||
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The timing of receiving the messages was acceptable |
“I think it’s fine, there’s nothing wrong with the timing...It asks you questions about the supplements and then tell you what the supplements provide you with, so I think it doesn’t cause any harm” [FGDb 1] “Whatever time I get the notification I read it and see what it contains, then I’m fine, I don’t see anything wrong.” [FGD 1] “I think it’s the perfect time because they usually send an SMS in the morning.” [FGD 2] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| Receiving the SMS text message at midday or later in the day was too late |
“I think mornings are better because you know that when you wake up, after breakfast you take it [micronutrient supplements].” [FGD 5] “[I receive the SMS] around 12 and you find that I am in class.” |
|
|
| Participants wanted to receive the message on Monday when they take their supplement |
“For me the one that I want for the morning is the Monday one because when I’m from the weekend, I don’t want to lie, I forget.” [FGD 3] |
|
|
| Other participants had personal timing preferences |
“I prefer night time because I just take it before bed time then sleep.” [FGD 5] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To receive the messages early in the morning and on Mondays |
“They should input it on time and not input it late, they should send it at around seven” [FGD 3] “I think they should send them Mondays and Wednesdays around 9, if you forgot, that will be a reminder that ‘I was supposed to take my supplements’” [FGD 1] |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| Receiving messages twice a week was acceptable |
“I think it’s fine, because you have to take them twice a week. So yes, it’s OK.” [FGD 4] “it was actually a good thing getting them twice a week.” [FGD 2] “I think twice a week it’s perfect.” [FGD 2] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| Receiving messages twice a week was not enough |
“I think it’s too little.” [FGD 3] “I wish they would send those every day” [FGD 1] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To receive the messages every day, particularly for those taking their supplements daily |
“At least every day, for me.” [FGD 3] “You should take them every day if your iron is low, so the SMS’s should also come every day. If your iron is OK; they should come in on your designated days to take the supplements.” [FGD 5] |
|
|
| However, some expressed that receiving the same messages every day would be too repetitive |
“Sometimes the SMS’s say the same thing; so do you think it’s right that we get those every day?” [FGD 5] |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The content was found to be easy to understand |
“They are OK; even the explanation is straight forward.” [FGD 5] “The English they use is simple, they don’t use bombastic...” [FGD 5] “It is self-explanatory and not complicated English.” [FGD 4] “The language is understandable” [FGD 2] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The repetitive nature of the adherence to SMS text messages was found boring |
“They sent the very same thing over and over so...no man!” [FGD 5] “Sometimes it was boring me, to be honest it was boring me. You do the same thing all the time.” [FGD 3] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To vary the phrasing of the adherence message from day to day (although some repetitiveness is inherent to the nature of these messages) | —c |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The length of the messages was acceptable |
“The length is not that much, like it’s very convenient, it doesn’t even take much of your time whereby you like now you have to sit down and read.” [FGD 2] “I think the long information is better.” [FGD 2] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The information messages were too long |
“What I disliked is that they were lengthy.” [FGD 5] “When you are tired from school and all the studying then you receive a long text...its draining.” [FGD 1] “Sometimes they send lengthier ones and maybe you are busy so I didn’t like those.” [FGD 5] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To shorten the information messages or split them into multiple messages |
“They should keep it brief and straight forward.” [FGD 5] “They should try and limit it and make sure they stick to the relevant key points and not add anything else.” [FGD 5] “So instead of sending one long message, they could send two different messages, one immediately after the other.” [FGD 1] |
aMain conclusion: The intervention was found to be acceptable, easy to understand, and delivered through an acceptable medium; however, opinions differed according to personal preference and needs on frequency, timing, and length of the messages.
bFGD: focus group discussion.
cIndicates a suggested adaptation formulated by the study team inferred from the presented evidence from the FGD but without direct supporting evidence from the participants.
Figure 3Use of 2-way SMS text messaging system by the number of SMS text message respondents and response rate by week.
Qualitative evaluation of the usability of and interaction with the Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative Bukhali SMS text messaging interventiona.
| Usability and interaction | Quotes | ||
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The SMS text message reached and was read by participants |
“I always read them.” [FGDb 1] “Yeah every time I got the message I read everything that is written on it.” [FGD 2] “If I saw that it is a different message I’d read the message.” [FGD 2] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| Reasons for not reading the SMS text messages included being too busy, loss of interest, and technical issues in receiving the SMS text messages |
“I won’t lie, when I am in class I just look at it and just put it back in my pocket.” [FGD 5] “I read them in the first week. I had the energy to; I would even sit down for it. But after that, no.” [FGD 5] “The phone I used to receive the SMS’s is broken, so...I no longer received the SMS’s” [FGD 1] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To send SMS text messages at a more convenient time (eg, earlier in the morning) | —c |
|
|
| To resolve technical problems and unearthing and solving individual participants’ technical problems by asking for regular feedback about this | — |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The respond function was used by some participants |
“Even if I don’t have airtime I make a plan and respond because I know if I don’t respond and I have taken them it won’t be OK.” [FGD 4] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| There was limited uptake for replying to the SMS text messages |
“I only replied twice; all the other times I would just use the airtime for my own good.” [FGD 5] “I don’t look to check if I can reply or something. I don’t reply anyway.” [FGD 3] |
|
|
| The main reasons for not replying were being busy, lack of interest, lack of airtimed, a technical error, and not understanding whether it is necessary to reply |
“What prevented me from replying was that I would receive the SMS while I am in class and I can’t reply and by the time I get home; I have lost interest in the SMS.” [FGD 5] “I didn’t have time. And sometimes it was boring me.” [FGD 3] “Sometimes the airtime disappears to your airtime advances payments before you can reply” [FGD 5] “I used to respond but I can’t anymore, it just says error.” [FGD 1] “That is where I struggle to understand if they really want us to reply or you just leave it like that?” [FGD 1] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To justify and explain the reply function at the start of the intervention |
“I think that you should explain...what should we reply? We must understand, you must give us the explanation.” [FGD 3] |
|
|
| To improve participant knowledge and understanding of the reply function and the airtime received at the start of the intervention, possibly through a short training session | — |
|
|
| To encourage participants to reply later even if they are busy at the moment of receiving the SMS text messages | — |
|
|
| To evaluate the usefulness of the reply function in this setting | — |
aMain conclusion: Although participants reported reading the SMS text messages, technical issues, a lack of time, and missing information were barriers to intervention usability, and participants expressed their use of the reply function was limited.
bFGD: focus group discussion.
cIndicates a suggested adaptation formulated by the study team inferred from the presented evidence from the FGD but without direct supporting evidence from the participants.
dPhone credit per minute.
Qualitative evaluation of the perceived benefits and consequences of the HeLTIa Bukhali SMS text messaging interventionb.
| Perceived benefits vs consequences | Quotes | ||
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The intervention helped participants feel supported by the study team |
“They make me feel like they care.” [FGDc 4] “I liked it because it showed that you do follow up, you are not just giving us the supplements only.” [FGD 5] “They show that they want to be a part of this so that they can help us so that we can be focused and remember” [FGD 3] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To expand the SMS text messaging service to facilitate additional communication to address questions, monitoring of side effects, and delivery of the supplements |
“If they can create a WhatsApp number where we can text them.” [FGD 5] “They must send me an SMS that by this date, we are going to be able to bring you your supplements.” [FGD 3] “To monitor [side effects] and...where it has boosted you so far” [FGD 3] |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The health literacy messages were found to be educational and filled a knowledge gap |
“I am happy about it. It teaches me how to balance my diet, supplements and things like that” [FGD 1] “the SMS’s tell you exactly what they are for and what they do and help with” [FGD 4] “I actually got to learn the names of vitamins...for me it was exciting” [FGD 4] “At clinics or wherever they don’t give us that much information. Now you know that even the small things that you can be able to plant yourself you can be able to get iron and be sharp.” [FGD 3] “I think twice a week it’s perfect.” [FGD 2] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| An unintended consequence of the health literacy messages was feelings of fear about side effects |
“I think they should cut out the side effects one because sometimes it’s scarier to know that the medication you are about to take, you might come across this situation and that situation...might stop people from taking the supplements” [FGD 1] |
|
|
| An overlap between the health literacy messages and HeLTI intervention resources was disadvantageous |
“Because we already have the pamphlets; you make us feel like we are stupid by repeating the same thing; so I don’t like reading the same thing repetitively.” [FGD 5] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To review the phrasing of side effect messages for fear-inducing language and adapt where necessary | —d |
|
|
| To ensure information messages complement and refer to HeLTI intervention resources | — |
|
|
| To additionally disseminate the health literacy messages through platforms such as social media, television, and word of mouth |
“Community health workers...with people, if someone knocks, you open for them and give them your attention, and then they educate.” [FGD 1] “Everything that there is on Facebook, I look at it.” [FGD 1] |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| Participants expressed that the adherence messages were an effective reminder |
“They were helpful because sometimes you forget to take them but when you receive the message you remember.” [FGD 5] “We don’t receive them anymore and it shows because I forget to take them, but yes, they were a reminder.” [FGD 4] “And also, our lives are busy, a lot so the SMS sometimes reminds you that you have to wake up, do like this and like this and like this.” [FGD 3] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The repetitive nature of the adherence message was not found useful |
“The information one I read, but the other one I don’t see it as necessary...because it’s the same thing.” [FGD 3] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| (Please see above for suggestions for improved acceptability for adherence messages) |
(Please see above for suggestions for improved acceptability for adherence messages) |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| Being able to reply to the messages felt beneficial for some |
“I also feel good letting them know that I am taking the supplements.” [FGD 4] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| Other participants did not perceive a benefit to responding to the messages |
“Why should I have to reply?” [FGD 3] “I felt no type of way.” [FGD 3] |
|
|
| An unintended consequence of the response option was feelings of guilt and judgment for not responding or taking supplements |
“Because of that part that you cannot answer, you seem like a person who is not cooperative, but you do want to cooperate it’s just that you don’t have what they require [airtime].” [FGD 4] “I felt like they would judge me and say I’d ruin my body...When I didn’t take the supplements I felt a bit odd because I did not want to disappoint them.” [FGD 4] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To justify and explain the reply function at the start of the intervention |
“I think that you should explain...what should we reply? We must understand, you must give us the explanation.” [FGD 3] |
|
|
| To assess the need for a reply function in this intervention | — |
|
|
| To thoroughly explain the nonjudgmental nature of the reply function, which is intended to help the participant. | — |
aHeLTI: Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative.
bMain conclusion: Participants perceived practical, supportive, and educational benefits to receiving SMS text messages; however, there was little perceived benefit for the response option, and feelings of worry and fear were unintended consequences associated with the intervention.
cFGD: focus group discussion.
dIndicates a suggested adaptation formulated by the study team inferred from the presented evidence from the FGD but without direct supporting evidence from the participants.
Figure 4Bar graph comparing the SMS text message–receiving and SMS text messaging control group participants’ self-reported adherence at follow-up.
Figure 5Bar graph comparing the SMS text message–receiving and SMS text messaging control group’s attitudes toward supplements improving their health at follow-up.
Linear mixed modeling for altitude-adjusted hemoglobin, adjusting for intervention exposure, time (baseline vs follow-up), and the interaction between time and intervention exposurea,b.
| Model | Coefficient (95% CI) | |
| SMS text message–receiving group | −0.70 (−1.13 to −0.28) | .001 |
| Time (baseline to follow-up) | −0.51 (−0.88 to −0.14) | .007 |
| SMS text message–receiving group×time | 1.03 (0.49 to 1.57) | <.001 |
aNo other covariables other than those shown were included in the model. SMS text message–receiving group×time indicates the interaction term between the SMS text messaging intervention exposure and time of measurement (baseline vs follow-up).
bAverage observations per group 1.7; P value model=.001.
Qualitative evaluation of the acceptability of the Phila Impilo Yakho Kangcono radio seriala.
| Acceptability radio serial | Quotes | ||
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| Participants liked the delivery of health messages through a narrative radio serial |
“On radio you get to hear people’s voices and emotions and by hearing what they’re saying maybe you can change your diet, your ways.” [FGDb 2] |
|
|
| Participants liked the associated Facebook page |
“It’s informative, it’s youthful.” [FGD 4] “I find it really inspirational because we learnt about things we did not know about.” [FGD 5] |
|
|
| Participants reported listening to the radio occasionally and in specific situations |
“You find that people don’t know how you get diabetes,...so it’s educational.” [FGD 2] “I personally think it [relationship between characters in serial] is realistic.” [FGD 1] “she [character] is the one who educates others...She also wants to learn so that she helps her mother, she’s so supportive.” [FGD 1] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| Participants reported not having previously heard the radio serial |
“I listen to radio but have never heard it before.” [FGD 3] “I don’t listen to radio.” [FGD 1] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To increase awareness of the radio serial |
“And word of mouth will help, just to say there’s this show on the radio.” [FGD 2] |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| The content and characters of the radio serial were found to be relatable and acceptable |
“You find that people don’t know how you get diabetes,...so it’s educational.” [FGD 2] “I personally think it [relationship between characters in serial] is realistic.” [FGD 1] “she [character] is the one who educates others...She also wants to learn so that she helps her mother, she’s so supportive.” [FGD 1] |
|
|
| ||
|
|
| To incorporate additional health literacy topics of interest, including exercise, hygiene, sexually transmitted illnesses, cancer, COVID-19, gender-based violence, and mental health |
“How to deal with your anxiety. Because with me when I walk the streets, I get scared...I overthink a lot especially with my schoolwork” [FGD 3] “I think cancer as well because we think it’s only for older people and we also get cancer now.” [FGD 5] “COVID-19 as well” [FGD 5] |
aMain conclusion: Participants found the delivery radio serial and associated Facebook page acceptable and the content likable and relatable.
bFGD: focus group discussion.
Qualitative results comparing the advantages and disadvantages of health messaging in the social messaging media, including SMS text messaging, radio, and a Facebook page.
| Media | Quotes | |||
|
| ||||
|
|
| |||
|
|
| Participants frequently use their phones |
“The fact that I’m always on my phone and it’s easy to access” [FGDa 4] “I always have time [to read the message] because I am always on my phone” [FGD 1] | |
|
|
| Does not require access to data |
“What if you don’t have data for social media? SMS doesn’t need data.” [FGD 1] | |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| Ability to listen to health messages through a story |
“On radio you get to hear people’s voices and emotions” [FGD 2] “I think radio communicates better than the SMS’s because sometimes you are lazy to read SMS’s but listening is better.” [FGD 5] | |
|
|
| Does not require access to data and can be accessed anywhere |
“On radio it’s an advantage...you can just switch on your radio, headsets and listen, whether you’re in a taxi, whether you’re doing something and you listen” [FGD 2] | |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| The community associated with the page |
“Some people go through a lot...it can actually help people open up about themselves.” [FGD 3] “I think with this page we can, people can talk and express their feelings.” [FGD 2] | |
|
|
| Ability to find past content (eg, past radio serial episodes) |
“[I prefer] social media. When you miss this show, nowadays there’s load shedding then when you miss the show they must repeat it so that you can listen to it again.” [FGD 2] | |
|
| ||||
|
|
| |||
|
|
| Some participants indicated a preference for phone calls |
“I prefer that they call; these older models are very problematic...so I prefer them to call, the same way they call when they run sessions.” [FGD 5] | |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| Not all participants listen to the radio frequently |
“We don’t often listen to the radio so I prefer the SMS” [FGD 4] | |
|
|
| Inability to find past content |
“Nowadays there’s load shedding [power cuts] then when you miss the show they must repeat it so that you can listen to it again.” [FGD 2] | |
|
|
| |||
|
|
| Data requiring |
“Social media, we always don’t have data.” [FGD 2] “Not all of us can access the internet.” [FGD 4] | |
|
|
| Participants need to proactively log in |
“When you get the notification you take your phone and check, but with Facebook, a week might go by without you logging in.” [FGD 1] “I don’t have Facebook I just deleted it so I prefer to listen to radio.” [FGD 2] | |
aFGD: focus group discussion.