Acceptance and use of mobile health technology in post-abortion care.
Mobile health
Post-abortion care
Technology acceptance
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Sep 2024
27 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
02
08
2024
accepted:
23
09
2024
medline:
28
9
2024
pubmed:
28
9
2024
entrez:
28
9
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Abortion and its complications have always been associated with challenges such as the lack of awareness, high cost of receiving in-person services, lack of access to the skilled healthcare workers, distance from healthcare centers in remote areas, and cultural sensitivities. Therefore, the use of mobile health technology in post-abortion care has been suggested. This study aimed to investigate factors influencing the acceptance and use of mhealth technology in post-abortion care. A mixed-methods study was completed in 2023. Initially, a literature review was conducted. Then, a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire was designed based on the results of the literature review. The research participants were gynecologists (n = 24), midwives (n = 38), and women who had experience of abortion (n = 183). Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The findings revealed that the participants had different opinions about the importance of motivating and inhibiting factors which included individual, technical, economic, organizational, and ethico-legal aspects. It seems that the individual, organizational, economic, and ethico-legal motivating factors as well as the ethico-legal inhibiting factors were more important than other factors and had higher mean values. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference between the mean values of gynecologists and patients regarding the individual motivating (P = 0.014) and technical inhibiting factors (P = 0.016). The gynecologists' opinions regarding the technical motivating factors were also significantly different from midwives (P = 0.044) and patients (P = 0.010). Multiple factors may influence the acceptance and use of mhealth technology in post-abortion care. Therefore, mhealth service developers must consider these factors to improve the quality of services and increase technology adoption. This will lead to saving costs, improving health, reducing abortion complications, and ultimately improving quality of life for women. However, further research in patient engagement and health interventions tailored to diverse cultural contexts are recommended.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Abortion and its complications have always been associated with challenges such as the lack of awareness, high cost of receiving in-person services, lack of access to the skilled healthcare workers, distance from healthcare centers in remote areas, and cultural sensitivities. Therefore, the use of mobile health technology in post-abortion care has been suggested. This study aimed to investigate factors influencing the acceptance and use of mhealth technology in post-abortion care.
METHOD
METHODS
A mixed-methods study was completed in 2023. Initially, a literature review was conducted. Then, a five-point Likert-scale questionnaire was designed based on the results of the literature review. The research participants were gynecologists (n = 24), midwives (n = 38), and women who had experience of abortion (n = 183). Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The findings revealed that the participants had different opinions about the importance of motivating and inhibiting factors which included individual, technical, economic, organizational, and ethico-legal aspects. It seems that the individual, organizational, economic, and ethico-legal motivating factors as well as the ethico-legal inhibiting factors were more important than other factors and had higher mean values. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference between the mean values of gynecologists and patients regarding the individual motivating (P = 0.014) and technical inhibiting factors (P = 0.016). The gynecologists' opinions regarding the technical motivating factors were also significantly different from midwives (P = 0.044) and patients (P = 0.010).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Multiple factors may influence the acceptance and use of mhealth technology in post-abortion care. Therefore, mhealth service developers must consider these factors to improve the quality of services and increase technology adoption. This will lead to saving costs, improving health, reducing abortion complications, and ultimately improving quality of life for women. However, further research in patient engagement and health interventions tailored to diverse cultural contexts are recommended.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39334105
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11633-5
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-11633-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1130Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Niţă AM, Ilie Goga C. A research on abortion: ethics, legislation and socio-medical outcomes. Case study: Romania. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2020;61(1):283–94.
pubmed: 32747924
pmcid: 7728127
doi: 10.47162/RJME.61.1.35
Quenby S, Gallos ID, Dhillon-Smith RK, Podesek M, Stephenson MD, Fisher J, Brosens JJ, Brewin J, Ramhorst R, Lucas ES. Miscarriage matters: the epidemiological, physical, psychological, and economic costs of early pregnancy loss. Lancet. 2021;397(10285):1658–67.
pubmed: 33915094
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00682-6
ADEWUMI OA. Post Abortion Care and Prevention of Maternal Mortality. 2019.
Shukla A, Vazquez-Quesada L, Vieitez I, Acharya R, RamaRao. Quality of care in abortion in the era of technological and medical advancements and self-care. Reprod Health. 2022;19(1):191.
pubmed: 36109756
pmcid: 9479303
doi: 10.1186/s12978-022-01499-3
Sorhaindo AM, Lavelanet AF. Why does abortion stigma matter? A scoping review and hybrid analysis of qualitative evidence illustrating the role of stigma in the quality of abortion care. Soc Sci Med. 2022;311:115271.
pubmed: 36152401
pmcid: 9577010
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115271
VanLeeuwen K. A qualitative exploration of experiences in faith-based post-abortion care. [M.Sc. thesis]. Ottawa: Université Saint-Paul/Saint Paul University; 2021.
Marecek J, Macleod C, Hoggart L. Abortion embedded and embodied in social relations: challenges for feminist psychology. Femin Psychol. 2017;27(2):133–43.
doi: 10.1177/0959353517704877
Das M. Psychosocial correlates of abortion: A community based study. India: Central Institute of Psychiatry; 2021.
Kimport K, McReynolds-Pérez J, Bercu C, Cisternas C, Wilkinson Salamea E, Zurbriggen R, Moseson H. The pleasure, joy and positive emotional experiences of abortion accompaniment after 17 weeks’ gestation. Cult Health Sex. 2024;26(8):1028–43.
pubmed: 38056488
doi: 10.1080/13691058.2023.2287720
Harris LH, Grossman D. Complications of unsafe and self-managed abortion. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(11):1029–40.
pubmed: 32160664
doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1908412
Stotland NL, Shrestha AD, Stotland NE. Reproductive rights and women’s Mental Health: essential information for the Obstetrician-Gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol Clin. 2021;48(1):11–29.
doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2020.11.002
Aiken A, Lohr PA, Lord J, Ghosh N, Starling J. Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of no-test medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) provided via telemedicine: a national cohort study. BJOG. 2021;128(9):1464–74.
Akazili J, Kanmiki EW, Anaseba D, Govender V, Danhoundo G, Koduah A. Challenges and facilitators to the provision of sexual, reproductive health and rights services in Ghana. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020;28(2):1846247.
pubmed: 33213298
pmcid: 7888097
doi: 10.1080/26410397.2020.1846247
Kanstrup C, Mäkelä M, Hauskov Graungaard A. Women’s reasons for choosing abortion method: a systematic literature review. Scand J Public Health. 2018;46(8):835–45.
pubmed: 28691571
doi: 10.1177/1403494817717555
Jerman J, Frohwirth L, Kavanaugh ML, Blades N. Barriers to abortion care and their consequences for patients traveling for services: qualitative findings from two states. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017;49(2):95–102.
pubmed: 28394463
pmcid: 5953191
doi: 10.1363/psrh.12024
Göttgens I, Oertelt-Prigione S. The application of human-centered design approaches in health research and innovation: a narrative review of current practices. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(12):e28102.
pubmed: 34874893
pmcid: 8691403
doi: 10.2196/28102
Endler M, Lavelanet A, Cleeve A, Ganatra B, Gomperts R, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Telemedicine for medical abortion: a systematic review. BJOG. 2019;126(9):1094–102.
pubmed: 30869829
pmcid: 7496179
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15684
Shahrokhi SN, Salmani H, Ahmadi M. The role of electronic health tools in unwanted pregnancy prevention, abortion and post-abortion follow-up: a systematic review. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2023;28(5):487–503.
pubmed: 37869688
pmcid: 10588920
doi: 10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_312_20
Upadhyay UD, Koenig LR, Meckstroth K, Ko J, Valladares ES, Biggs MA. Effectiveness and safety of telehealth medication abortion in the USA. Nat Med. 2024;30(4):1191–8.
Zolfaqari Z, Ayatollahi H, Ranjbar F, Abasi A. Motivating and inhibiting factors influencing the application of mhealth technology in post-abortion care: a review study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24(1):73.
pubmed: 38254045
pmcid: 10804730
doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06253-0
Kaye DK, Kayondo SP, Nabatanzi SL, Nassuuna S, Musana O, Namagembe I, Nsanja JP, Kakaire O, Ssebadduka P, Ssekimpi C. Using digital platforms to promote a healthcare provider community of practice for abortion care in Uganda. Reprod Health. 2023;20(1):180.
Suh S. Metrics of survival: post-abortion care and reproductive rights in Senegal. Med Anthropol. 2019;38(2):152–66.
pubmed: 30102077
doi: 10.1080/01459740.2018.1496333
Taherdoost H. A review of technology and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manuf. 2018;22:960–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.137
Lupton D, Maslen S. How women use digital technologies for health: qualitative interview and focus group study. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(1):e11481.
pubmed: 30681963
pmcid: 6367665
doi: 10.2196/11481
Ngo A, Nguyen VT, Phan H, Pham V, Ngo C, Nguyen L, Ha T. Effectiveness of mHealth intervention on safe abortion knowledge and perceived barriers to safe abortion services among female sex workers in Vietnam. Mhealth. 2023;9:3.
pubmed: 36760784
pmcid: 9902234
doi: 10.21037/mhealth-22-41
Meskó B, Drobni Z, Bényei É, Gergely B, Győrffy Z. Digital health is a cultural transformation of traditional healthcare. Mhealth. 2017;3:38.
Feroz AS, Ali NA, Khoja A, Asad A, Saleem S. Using mobile phones to improve young people sexual and reproductive health in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review to identify barriers, facilitators, and range of mHealth solutions. Reprod Health. 2021;18(1):9.
pubmed: 33453723
pmcid: 7811742
doi: 10.1186/s12978-020-01059-7
Smith C, Ly S, Uk V, Warnock R, Free C. Women’s views and experiences of a mobile phone-based intervention to support post-abortion contraception in Cambodia. Reprod Health. 2017;14(1):72.
pubmed: 28606181
pmcid: 5469016
doi: 10.1186/s12978-017-0329-y
Shirdel E, Asadisarvestani K, Kargar FH. The abortion trend after the pronatalist turn of population policies in Iran: a systematic review from 2005 to 2022. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):1885.
pubmed: 39010012
pmcid: 11247811
doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19249-4
Janighorban M, Boroumandfar Z, Pourkazemi R, Mostafavi F. Barriers to vulnerable adolescent girls’ access to sexual and reproductive health. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):2212.
pubmed: 36447192
pmcid: 9706928
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14687-4
Saheb T, Mehrizi EA. Mobile health (mHealth) applications and self healthcare management: Willingness of Female Patients Living in Rural Areas to Static Mobile Apps. In: Calisir F, Cevikcan E, Camgoz Akdag H, editors. Industrial Engineering in the Big Data Era: Selected Papers from the Global Joint Conference on Industrial Engineering and Its Application Areas, GJCIE 2018, June 21–22, 2018, Nevsehir, Turkey. Switzerland: Springer nature; 2019. p. 429–41.
Garavand A, Samadbeik M, Kafashi M, Abhari S. Acceptance of health information technologies, acceptance of mobile health: a review article. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2017;7(4):403–8.
pubmed: 29445717
pmcid: 5809934
Binyamin SS, Zafar BA. Proposing a mobile apps acceptance model for users in the health area: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Health Inf J. 2021;27(1):1460458220976737.
Tao D, Wang T, Wang T, Zhang T, Zhang X, Qu X. A systematic review and meta-analysis of user acceptance of consumer-oriented health information technologies. Comput Hum Behav. 2020;104:e106147.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.023
Ebrahimi S, Mehdipour Y, Karimi A, Khammarnia M, Alipour J. Determinants of physicians’ technology acceptance for mobile health services in healthcare settings. J Health Manag Inf. 2018;5(1):9–15.
Tripp N, Hainey K, Liu A, Poulton A, Peek M, Kim J, Nanan R. An emerging model of maternity care: smartphone, midwife, doctor? Women Birth. 2014;27(1):64–7.
pubmed: 24295598
doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2013.11.001
Slater HCJ, Stinson J, Burley M, Briggs A. End user and implementer experiences of mHealth technologies for noncommunicable chronic disease management in young adults: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(12):e406.
Varnfield M, Redd C, Stoney RM, Higgins L, Scolari N, Warwick R, Iedema J, Rundle J, Dutton W. MheartTHer, an mHealth system to support women with gestational diabetes mellitus: feasibility and acceptability study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021;23(5):358–66.
pubmed: 33210954
pmcid: 8080933
doi: 10.1089/dia.2020.0509
Breland JY, Agha K, Mohankumar R. Adoption and appropriateness of mHealth for weight management in the real world: a qualitative investigation of patient perspectives. JMIR Form Res. 2021;5(12):e29916.
pubmed: 34889761
pmcid: 8701719
doi: 10.2196/29916
Li RLN, Bu F, Hesketh T. The effectiveness of self-management of hypertension in adults using mobile health: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(3):e17776.
pubmed: 32217503
pmcid: 7148553
doi: 10.2196/17776
Stefanicka-Wojtas D, Kurpas D. eHealth and mHealth in chronic diseases-identification of barriers, existing solutions, and promoters based on a survey of EU stakeholders involved in regions4PerMed (H2020). J Pers Med. 2022;12(3):467.
Zhou L, Bao J, Watzlaf V, Parmanto B. Barriers to and facilitators of the use of mobile health apps from a security perspective: mixed-methods study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(4):e11223.
pubmed: 30990458
pmcid: 6488955
doi: 10.2196/11223
Zhou C, Liu X, Yu C, Tao Y, Shao Y. Trust in AI-augmented design: applying structural equation modeling to AI-augmented design acceptance. Heliyon. 2023;10(1):e23305.
Schomakers Em LC, Vervier Ls, Calero Valdez A, Ziefle M. Applying an extended UTAUT2 model to explain user acceptance of lifestyle and therapy mobile health apps: Survey study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022;10(1):e27095.
pubmed: 35040801
pmcid: 8808343
doi: 10.2196/27095
Shuwandy ML, Zaidan BB, Zaidan AA, Albahri AS. Sensor-based mHealth authentication for real-time remote healthcare monitoring system: a multilayer systematic review. J Med Syst. 2019;43(2):33.
pubmed: 30612191
doi: 10.1007/s10916-018-1149-5
Simblett S, Pennington M, Quaife M, Theochari E, Burke P, Brichetto G, Devonshire J, Lees S, Little A, Pullen A, et al. Key drivers and facilitators of the choice to use mHealth technology in people with neurological conditions: observational study. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(5):e29509.
pubmed: 35604761
pmcid: 9171601
doi: 10.2196/29509
Bucci S, Berry N, Morris R, Berry K, Haddock G, Lewis S, Edge D. They are not hard-to-reach clients. We have just got hard-to-reach services. Staff views of digital health tools in specialist mental health services. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:344–58.
pubmed: 31133906
pmcid: 6524662
doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00344
Atienza AA, Zarcadoolas C, Vaughon W, Hughes P, Patel V, Chou W-YS, Pritts J. Consumer attitudes and perceptions on mHealth privacy and security: findings from a mixed-methods study. J Health Commun. 2015;20(6):673–9.
pubmed: 25868685
doi: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018560
Almazroi AA, Mohammed F, Al-Kumaim NH, Hoque MR. An empirical study of factors influencing e-health services adoption among public in Saudi Arabia. Health Inf J. 2022;28(2):14604582221102316.
Papageorgiou A, Strigkos M, Politou E, Alepis E, Solanas A, Patsakis C. Security and privacy analysis of mobile health applications: the alarming state of practice. IEEE Access. 2018;6:9390–403.
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2799522
Schroeder T, Haug M, Gewald H. Data privacy concerns using mHealth apps and smart speakers: comparative interview study among mature adults. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(6):e28025.
pubmed: 35699993
pmcid: 9237761
doi: 10.2196/28025
Lim HM, Dunn AG, Muhammad Firdaus Ooi S, Teo CH, Abdullah A, Woo WJ, Ng CJ. MHealth adoption among primary care physicians in Malaysia and its associated factors: a cross-sectional study. Fam Pract. 2021;38(3):210–7.
pubmed: 32968795
doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmaa103
Kaphle S, Chaturvedi S, Chaudhuri I, Krishnan R, Lesh N. Adoption and usage of mHealth technology on quality and experience of care provided by frontline workers: observations from rural India. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(2):e61.
pubmed: 26023001
pmcid: 4464193
doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4047
Jacob CS-VA, Ivory C. Social, organizational, and technological factors impacting clinicians’ adoption of mobile health tools: systematic literature review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(2):e15935.
pubmed: 32130167
pmcid: 7059085
doi: 10.2196/15935
Breil B, Salewski C, Apolinario-Hagen J. Comparing the acceptance of mobile hypertension apps for disease management among patients versus clinical use among physicians: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Cardio. 2022;6(1):e31617.
pubmed: 34989683
pmcid: 8778565
doi: 10.2196/31617
Dahlhausen F, Zinner M, Bieske L, Ehlers JP, Boehme P, Fehring L. There’s an app for that, but nobody’s using it: insights on improving patient access and adherence to digital therapeutics in Germany. Digit Health. 2022;8:20552076221104672.
pubmed: 35811758
pmcid: 9260569
Morey SA, Stuck RE, Chong AW, Barg-Walkow LH, Mitzner TL, Rogers WA. Mobile health apps: improving usability for older adult users. Ergon Des. 2019;27(4):4–13.
Lazard AJ, Babwah Brennen JS, Belina SP. App designs and interactive features to increase mHealth adoption: user expectation survey and experiment. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(11):e29815.
pubmed: 34734829
pmcid: 8603164
doi: 10.2196/29815
Gill R, Ogilvie G, Norman WV, Fitzsimmons B, Maher C, Renner R. Feasibility and acceptability of a mobile technology intervention to support postabortion care in British Columbia: phase I. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(5):e13387.
pubmed: 31144668
pmcid: 6658228
doi: 10.2196/13387
Gill R, Ogilvie G, Norman WV, Fitzsimmons B, Maher C, Renner R. Feasibility and acceptability of a mobile technology intervention to support postabortion care after surgical abortion (the FACTS study phase 3): mixed-methods prospective pilot study. JMIR Form Res. 2024;8:e46284.
pubmed: 38194252
pmcid: 10807380
doi: 10.2196/46284