Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36201391›Full record

ReviewJMIR pediatrics and parenting2022

mHealth Technology Design and Evaluation for Early Childhood Health Promotion: Systematic Literature Review.

Akeiylah DeWitt, Julie Kientz, Tumaini R Coker, Kendra Liljenquist

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Akeiylah DeWittDepartment of Human-Centered Design and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4534-7273
Julie KientzDepartment of Human-Centered Design and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7437-7861
Tumaini R CokerSeattle Childrens Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5111-6527
Kendra LiljenquistDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0618-2506
University of Washington · USCenter for Infectious Disease Research · US

Funding

AHRQ HHS K12 HS026369
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent increases in smartphone ownership among underserved populations have inspired researchers in medicine, computing, and health informatics to design and evaluate mobile health (mHealth) interventions, specifically for those supporting child development and growth. Although these interventions demonstrate possible effectiveness at larger scales, few of these interventions are evaluated to address racial disparities and health equity, which are known factors that affect relevance, uptake, and adherence in target populations.

objectiveIn this study, we aimed to identify and document the current design and evaluation practices of mHealth technologies that promote early childhood health, with a specific focus on opportunities for those processes to address health disparities and health equity.

methodsWe completed a systematic literature review of studies that design and evaluate mHealth interventions for early childhood health promotion. We then analyzed these studies to identify opportunities to address racial disparities in early- and late-stage processes and to understand the potential efficacy of these interventions.

resultsAcross the literature from medical, computing, and health informatics fields, we identified 15 articles that presented a design or evaluation of a parent-facing health intervention. We found that using mobile-based systems to deliver health interventions was generally well accepted by parents of children aged <5 years. We also found that, when measured, parenting knowledge of early childhood health topics and confidence to engage in health-promoting behaviors improved. Design and evaluation methods held internal consistency within disciplines (eg, experimental study designs were the most prevalent in medical literature, while computing researchers used user-centered design methods in computing fields). However, there is little consistency in design or evaluation methods across fields.

conclusionsTo support more interventions with a comprehensive design and evaluation process, we recommend attention to design at the intervention (eg, reporting content sources) and system level; interdisciplinary collaboration in early childhood health intervention development can lead to large-scale deployment and success among populations.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022359797; https://tinyurl.com/586nx9a2.

Indexed as

child developmentearly childhood health promotionmobile health technologiesmobile phoneparent support technologies

Identifiers

PMID36201391
PMCPMC9585442
OpenAlexW4283650526

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.