Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Protocol

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

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

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Discussion

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.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42016037344.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Aune D, Saugstad OD, Henriksen T, Tonstad S. Maternal body mass index and the risk of fetal death, stillbirth, and infant death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311:1536–46.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Marufu TC, Ahankari A, Coleman T, Lewis S. Maternal smoking and the risk of still birth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:239.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Flenady V, Middleton P, Smith GC, Duke W, Erwich JJ, Khong TY, Neilson J, Ezzati M, Koopmans L, Ellwood D, et al. Stillbirths: the way forward in high-income countries. Lancet. 2011;377:1703–17.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Saastad E, Tveit JV, Flenady V, Stray-Pedersen B, Fretts RC, Bordahl PE, Froen JF. Implementation of uniform information on fetal movement in a Norwegian population reduced delayed reporting of decreased fetal movement and stillbirths in primiparous women - a clinical quality improvement. BMC Res Notes. 2010;3:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Waiswa P, Amouzou A, Mathers C, Hogan D, Flenady V, Froen JF, Qureshi ZU, Calderwood C, et al. Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030. Lancet. 2016;387:587–603.CrossRefPubMed
6.
O’Higgins A, Murphy OC, Egan A, Mullaney L, Sheehan S, Turner MJ. The use of digital media by women using the maternity services in a developed country. Ir Med J. 2014;107:313–5.PubMed
7.
Asiodu IV, Waters CM, Dailey DE, Lee KA, Lyndon A. Breastfeeding and use of social media among first-time African American mothers. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2015;44:268–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Higgs ES, Goldberg AB, Labrique AB, Cook SH, Schmid C, Cole CF, Obregon RA. Understanding the role of mHealth and other media interventions for behavior change to enhance child survival and development in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence review. J Health Commun. 2014;19 Suppl 1:164–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Ledford CJ, Canzona MR, Cafferty LA, Hodge JA. Mobile application as a prenatal education and engagement tool: a randomized controlled pilot. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99:578–82.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Free C, Phillips G, Galli L, Watson L, Felix L, Edwards P, Patel V, Haines A. The effectiveness of mobile-health technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review. Plos Med. 2013;10:e1001362.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Agarwal S, Labrique A. Newborn health on the line: the potential mHealth applications. JAMA. 2014;312:229–30.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Snell J, Cohen P. Apple opens iTunes App Store. In Macworld. San Francisco: IDG Consumer & SMB; 2008.
13.
Thomas GM, Lupton D. Threats and thrills: pregnancy apps, risk and consumption. Health Risk Soc. 2016;17:495–509.CrossRef
14.
Jahns R. mHealth app developers economics. Germany: The State of the Art of mHealth App Publishing; 2014.
15.
Lupton D, Pedersen S. An Australian survey of women’s use of pregnancy and parenting apps. Women Birth. 2016;29:368–75.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Hearn L, Miller M, Fletcher A. Online healthy lifestyle support in the perinatal period: what do women want and do they use it? Aust J Prim Health. 2013;19:313–8.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Wellde PT, Miller LA. There’s an app for that!: new directions using social media in patient education and support. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2016;30:198–203.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Daly LM. Apps and opps: mobile applications and opportunities for longitudinal data collection across the reproductive lifespan. In Australian Longitudinal Study of Women’s Health (ALSWH) Scientific Meeting. Newcastle: ALSWH Scientific Meeting; 2016.
19.
O’Donnell BE, Lewkowitz AK, Vargas JE, Zlatnik MG. Examining pregnancy-specific smartphone applications: what are patients being told? J Perinatol. 2016;36:802–7.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Vodopivec-Jamsek V, de Jongh T, Gurol-Urganci I, Atun R, Car J. Mobile phone messaging for preventive health care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:Cd007457.PubMed
21.
Horvath T, Azman H, Kennedy GE, Rutherford GW: Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(3):Cd009756.
22.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;2015(4):1–9.CrossRef
24.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Metadata online registry (METeOR). Canberra: AIHW; 2016.
25.
Veritas Health Innovation. Melbourne: Covidence systematic review software; 2016.
26.
Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet. 1997;350:185–6.CrossRefPubMed
27.
University of York. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance in undertaking reviews in health care. Section 1.3.2.1: Masking/blinding. Thirdth ed. New York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2009.
28.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The Prisma Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Plos Med. 2009;6:e1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
RevMan. Review Manager. 53rd ed. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.
30.
31.
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
33.
GRADEpro: GRADEpro. Hamilton: McMaster University; 2014.
34.
Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The effect of mobile application interventions on influencing healthy maternal behaviour and improving perinatal health outcomes: a systematic review protocol
Authors
Lisa M. Daly
Dell Horey
Philippa F. Middleton
Frances M. Boyle
Vicki Flenady
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0424-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Systematic Reviews 1/2017 Go to the issue

Protocol

Impact of body size, nutrition and socioeconomic position in early life on the epigenome: a systematic review protocol

Protocol

Impact of different dietary approaches on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Research

Effectiveness of upper limb functional electrical stimulation after stroke for the improvement of activities of daily living and motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protocol

Identifying effective components for mobile health behaviour change interventions for smoking cessation and service uptake: protocol of a systematic review and planned meta-analysis

Research

The number of stimuli required to reliably assess corticomotor excitability and primary motor cortical representations using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research

The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews