↓ Skip to main content

The effect of mobile application interventions on influencing healthy maternal behaviour and improving perinatal health outcomes: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
The effect of mobile application interventions on influencing healthy maternal behaviour and improving perinatal health outcomes: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0424-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa M. Daly, Dell Horey, Philippa F. Middleton, Frances M. Boyle, Vicki Flenady

Abstract

Perinatal morbidity and mortality remain significant public health issues globally, with enduring impact on the health and well-being of women and their families. Pregnant women who adopt, practice and maintain healthy behaviours can potentially improve the health of themselves and their babies. Mobile applications are an increasingly popular mode of accessing, storing and sharing health information among pregnant women. The main objective of this review is to evaluate the effects of mobile application interventions during pregnancy on maternal behaviour and associated maternal and infant outcomes. This review will include randomised and non-randomised studies which tested use of mobile applications designed to improve either maternal knowledge or behaviours to address known risk factors associated with adverse perinatal health outcomes. This review will include studies which included pregnant women and/or women during birth. The search strategy will utilise a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. Literature databases such as PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and WHO Global Health Library will be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen retrieved citations to determine if they meet inclusion criteria. Studies will be selected that provide information about interventions commenced in early pregnancy, late pregnancy or labour. Comparisons to be made include mobile applications versus interventions relying on paper-based or text-messaging-based communication; interpersonal communication such as face-to-face or telephone conversation; and no intervention or standard care. Quality assessment of included randomised studies will utilise established guidelines provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Quality assessment of non-randomised studies will be based on the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. Quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Separate comparisons and analyses for primary and secondary outcomes will be performed. Results of the review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This systematic review will identify and synthesize evidence about the effect of interventions delivered through mobile applications on influencing maternal behaviour and improving perinatal health outcomes. PROSPERO CRD42016037344 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 137 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 22%
Student > Bachelor 23 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 32 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 20%
Psychology 13 9%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 40 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,368,044
of 9,043,752 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#528
of 768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,312
of 310,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#34
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,043,752 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 310,806 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.