How and why front-line health workers (did not) use a multifaceted mHealth intervention to support maternal and neonatal healthcare decision-making in Ghana

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorAmoakoh, H.B.
dc.contributor.authorKlipstein-Grobusch, K.
dc.contributor.authorAnsah, E.K.
dc.contributor.authorGrobbee, D.E.
dc.contributor.authorYveoo, L.
dc.contributor.authorAgyepong, I.
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-20T11:04:47Z
dc.date.available2019-05-20T11:04:47Z
dc.date.issued2019-03
dc.description.abstractIntroductionDespite increasing use of mHealth interventions, there remains limited documentation of ‘how and why’ they are used and therefore the explanatory mechanisms behind observed effects on beneficiary health outcomes. We explored ‘how and why’ an mHealth intervention to support clinical decision-making by front-line providers of maternal and neonatal healthcare services in a low-resource setting was used. The intervention consisted of phone calls (voice calls), text messaging (short messaging service (SMS)), internet access (data) and access to emergency obstetric and neonatal protocols via an Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD). It was delivered through individual-use and shared facility mobile phones with unique Subscriber Identification Module (SIM) cards networked in a Closed User Group.MethodsA single case study with multiple embedded subunits of analysis within the context of a cluster randomised controlled trial of the impact of the intervention on neonatal health outcomes in the Eastern Region of Ghana was performed. We quantitatively analysed SIM card activity data for patterns of voice calls, SMS, data and USSD. We conducted key informant interviews and focus group discussions with intervention users and manually analysed the data for themes.resultsOverall, the phones were predominantly used for voice calls (64%), followed by data (28%), SMS (5%) and USSD (2%), respectively. Over time, use of all intervention components declined. Qualitative analysis showed that individual health worker factors (demographics, personal and work-related needs, perceived timeliness of intervention, tacit knowledge), organisational factors (resource availability, information flow, availability, phone ownership), technological factors (attrition of phones, network quality) and client perception of health worker intervention usage explain the pattern of intervention use observed.ConclusionHow and why the mHealth intervention was used (or not) went beyond the technology itself and was influenced by individual and context-specific factors. These must be taken into account in designing similar interventions to optimise effectivenessen_US
dc.identifier.citationAmoakoh HB, Klipstein-Grobusch K, Ansah EK, et al How and why front-line health workers (did not) use a multifaceted mHealth intervention to support maternal and neonatal healthcare decision-making in Ghana BMJ Global Health 2019;4:e001153.en_US
dc.identifier.other. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001153
dc.identifier.urihttp://ugspace.ug.edu.gh/handle/123456789/30115
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBMJ Global Healthen_US
dc.titleHow and why front-line health workers (did not) use a multifaceted mHealth intervention to support maternal and neonatal healthcare decision-making in Ghanaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
How and why front-line health workers (did not) use a multifaceted mHealth intervention to support maternal and neonatal healthcare decision-making in Ghana.pdf
Size:
1.92 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.6 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Department of Community Health