Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33187163›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Acceptability and Barriers to Use of the ASMAN Provider-Facing Electronic Platform for Peripartum Care in Public Facilities in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, India: A Qualitative Study Using the Technology Acceptance Model-3.

Gulnoza Usmanova, Ashley Gresh, Megan A Cohen, Young-Mi Kim, Ashish Srivastava, Chandra Shekhar Joshi, Deepak Chandra Bhatt, Rachel Haws, Rajni Wadhwa, Pompy Sridhar and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

13 authors.

Gulnoza UsmanovaJhpiego-An Affiliate of Johns Hopkins University, New Delhi 110020, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7733-6264
Ashley GreshJohns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Megan A CohenJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9902-7806
Young-Mi KimJhpiego-An Affiliate of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA.
Ashish SrivastavaJhpiego-An Affiliate of Johns Hopkins University, New Delhi 110020, India.ORCID 0000-0003-3100-3581
Chandra Shekhar JoshiJhpiego-An Affiliate of Johns Hopkins University, New Delhi 110020, India.
Deepak Chandra BhattJhpiego-An Affiliate of Johns Hopkins University, New Delhi 110020, India.
Rachel HawsJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2887-8571
Rajni WadhwaProject Management Unit, ASMAN: Alliance for Saving Mothers and Newborns, Mumbai 400021, India.
Pompy SridharMSD for Mothers, Mumbai 4000098, India.
Nupur BahlReliance Foundation, Mumbai 400021, India.
Pratibha GaikwadTata Trusts, Mumbai 400005, India.
Jean AndersonJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolving field of mobile health (mHealth) is revolutionizing collection, management, and quality of clinical data in health systems. Particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), mHealth approaches for clinical decision support and record-keeping offer numerous potential advantages over paper records and in-person training and supervision. We conducted a content analysis of qualitative in-depth interviews using the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM-3) to explore perspectives of providers and health managers in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, India who were using the ASMAN (Alliance for Saving Mothers and Newborns) platform, a package of mHealth technologies to support management during the peripartum period. Respondents uniformly found ASMAN easy to use and felt it improved quality of care, reduced referral rates, ensured timely referral when needed, and aided reporting requirements. The TAM-3 model captured many determinants of reported respondent use behavior, including shifting workflow and job performance. However, some barriers to ASMAN digital platform use were structural and reported more often in facilities where ASMAN use was less consistent; these affect long-term impact, sustainability, and scalability of ASMAN and similar mHealth interventions. The transitioning of the program to the government, ensuring availability of dedicated funds, human resource support, and training and integration with government health information systems will ensure the sustainability of ASMAN.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyPeripartum PeriodPublic FacilitiesElectronicsFemaleHumansIndiaInfant, NewbornPostnatal CareCDSShealth information technologyintrapartum carematernal healthmHealthpostpartum care

Identifiers

PMID33187163
PMCPMC7696182

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.