↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of randomised control trials of sexual health interventions delivered by mobile technologies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
256 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review of randomised control trials of sexual health interventions delivered by mobile technologies
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3408-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kara Burns, Patrick Keating, Caroline Free

Abstract

Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) pose a serious public health problem globally. The rapid spread of mobile technology creates an opportunity to use innovative methods to reduce the burden of STIs. This systematic review identified recent randomised controlled trials that employed mobile technology to improve sexual health outcomes. The following databases were searched for randomised controlled trials of mobile technology based sexual health interventions with any outcome measures and all patient populations: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Global Health, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, NHS Health Technology Assessment Database, and Web of Science (science and social science citation index) (Jan 1999-July 2014). Interventions designed to increase adherence to HIV medication were not included. Two authors independently extracted data on the following elements: interventions, allocation concealment, allocation sequence, blinding, completeness of follow-up, and measures of effect. Trials were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated effect estimates using intention to treat analysis. A total of ten randomised trials were identified with nine separate study groups. No trials had a low risk of bias. The trials targeted: 1) promotion of uptake of sexual health services, 2) reduction of risky sexual behaviours and 3) reduction of recall bias in reporting sexual activity. Interventions employed up to five behaviour change techniques. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in trial assessment and reporting. Two trials reported statistically significant improvements in the uptake of sexual health services using SMS reminders compared to controls. One trial increased knowledge. One trial reported promising results in increasing condom use but no trial reported statistically significant increases in condom use. Finally, one trial showed that collection of sexual health information using mobile technology was acceptable. The findings suggest interventions delivered by SMS interventions can increase uptake of sexual health services and STI testing. High quality trials of interventions using standardised objective measures and employing a wider range of behavioural change techniques are needed to assess if interventions delivered by mobile phone can alter safer sex behaviours carried out between couples and reduce STIs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 255 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 15%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 63 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 14%
Social Sciences 24 9%
Psychology 22 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 5%
Other 41 16%
Unknown 73 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,449,008
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,585
of 14,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,022
of 355,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#53
of 388 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 388 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.