Evidence mapPaperPMID 32779730Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020

Targeted client communication via mobile devices for improving sexual and reproductive health.

Melissa J Palmer, Nicholas Henschke, Gemma Villanueva, Nicola Maayan, Hanna Bergman, Claire Glenton, Simon Lewin, Marita S Fønhus, Tigest Tamrat, Garrett L Mehl and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Advancing equity and value in United States healthcare: an umbrella review.International journal for equity in health · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Mobile phone-based interventions for improving contraception use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Sex Education in the Spotlight: What Is Working? Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. When HIPAA hurts: legal barriers to texting may reinforce healthcare disparities and disenfranchise vulnerable patients.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Review
  16. Towards 'Formalising' WhatsApp Teledermatology Practice in KZ-N District Hospitals: Key Informant Interviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Melissa J PalmerDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Nicholas HenschkeCochrane Response, Cochrane, London, UK.
Gemma VillanuevaCochrane Response, Cochrane, London, UK.
Nicola MaayanIndependent consultant, London, UK.
Hanna BergmanCochrane Response, Cochrane, London, UK.
Claire GlentonNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Simon LewinNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Marita S FønhusNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Tigest TamratDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Garrett L MehlDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Caroline FreeDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Cochrane · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBNorwegian Institute of Public Health · NOWorld Health Organization · CHSouth African Medical Research Council · ZA

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe burden of poor sexual and reproductive health (SRH) worldwide is substantial, disproportionately affecting those living in low- and middle-income countries. Targeted client communication (TCC) delivered via mobile devices (MD) (TCCMD) may improve the health behaviours and service use important for sexual and reproductive health.

objectivesTo assess the effects of TCC via MD on adolescents' knowledge, and on adolescents' and adults' sexual and reproductive health behaviour, health service use, and health and well-being. SEARCH

methodsIn July/August 2017, we searched five databases including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched two trial registries. A search update was carried out in July 2019 and potentially relevant studies are awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of TCC via MD to improve sexual and reproductive health behaviour, health service use, and health and well-being. Eligible comparators were standard care or no intervention, non-digital TCC, and digital non-targeted communication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, although data extraction and risk of bias assessments were carried out by one person only and cross-checked by a second. We have presented results separately for adult and adolescent populations, and for each comparison. MAIN

resultsWe included 40 trials (27 among adult populations and 13 among adolescent populations) with a total of 26,854 participants. All but one of the trials among adolescent populations were conducted in high-income countries. Trials among adult populations were conducted in a range of high- to low-income countries. Among adolescents, nine interventions were delivered solely through text messages; four interventions tested text messages in combination with another communication channel, such as emails, multimedia messaging, or voice calls; and one intervention used voice calls alone. Among adults, 20 interventions were delivered through text messages; two through a combination of text messages and voice calls; and the rest were delivered through other channels such as voice calls, multimedia messaging, interactive voice response, and instant messaging services. Adolescent populations TCCMD versus standard care TCCMD may increase sexual health knowledge (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.71; low-certainty evidence). TCCMD may modestly increase contraception use (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). The effects on condom use, antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence, and health service use are uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. The effects on abortion and STI rates are unknown due to lack of studies. TCCMD versus non-digital TCC (e.g. pamphlets) The effects of TCCMD on behaviour (contraception use, condom use, ART adherence), service use, health and wellbeing (abortion and STI rates) are unknown due to lack of studies for this comparison. TCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication The effects on sexual health knowledge, condom and contraceptive use are uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Interventions may increase health service use (attendance for STI/HIV testing, RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.40; low-certainty evidence). The intervention may be beneficial for reducing STI rates (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence), but the confidence interval encompasses both benefit and harm. The effects on abortion rates and on ART adherence are unknown due to lack of studies. We are uncertain whether TCCMD results in unintended consequences due to lack of evidence. Adult populations TCCMD versus standard care For health behaviours, TCCMD may modestly increase contraception use at 12 months (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.48) and may reduce repeat abortion (RR 0.68 95% CI 0.28 to 1.66), though the confidence interval encompasses benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). The effect on condom use is uncertain. No study measured the impact of this intervention on STI rates. TCCMD may modestly increase ART adherence (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence, and standardised mean difference 0.44, 95% CI -0.14 to 1.02, low-certainty evidence). TCCMD may modestly increase health service utilisation (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence), but there was substantial heterogeneity (I AUTHORS'

conclusionsTCCMD may improve some outcomes but the evidence is of low certainty. The effect on most outcomes is uncertain/unknown due to very low certainty evidence or lack of evidence. High quality, adequately powered trials and cost effectiveness analyses are required to reliably ascertain the effects and relative benefits of TCC delivered by mobile devices. Given the sensitivity and stigma associated with sexual and reproductive health future studies should measure unintended consequences, such as partner violence or breaches of confidentiality.

Indexed as

Cell PhoneCommunicationReproductive HealthSexual HealthAbortion, LegalAdolescentContraceptionFemaleHealth BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansMaleQuality ImprovementRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSexually Transmitted Diseases

Identifiers

PMID32779730
PMCPMC8409381
OpenAlexW3048437755

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.