ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2026
Experiential Classes Plus Digital Logging in Antenatal Care for Pregnant Women in China: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Maternal health during the perinatal period is a global public health priority. While antenatal education is widely implemented, conventional lecture-based models often fail to achieve sustained behavior change. Innovative approaches that integrate experiential learning with digital support may enhance maternal knowledge, self-management, and pregnancy outcomes. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a combined experiential class and online logging intervention for pregnant women in China and to explore the mechanisms underpinning its impact on health practices and service experiences. Methods: A mixed methods design was used in a district-level maternal and child health hospital in Beijing. In the quantitative arm, 40 women (intervention group, n=20; control group, n=20) were enrolled in a quasi-experimental comparison. Outcomes included knowledge-attitude-practice indicators, service satisfaction, and clinical birth outcomes. Given the limited sample size, a qualitative arm was conducted to complement statistical findings: semistructured interviews with 20 women (10 per group) were analyzed thematically. Quantitative and qualitative results were integrated during interpretation to provide a comprehensive evaluation. Results: Compared with the experiential class alone, the combined intervention was associated with higher knowledge scores (mean difference 1.6 points, 95% CI 0.8-2.4), stronger adherence to recommended health practices (composite adherence score difference 1.0, 95% CI 0.4-1.6), and higher overall service satisfaction (mean difference 0.6, 95% CI 0.2-1.0). Across multiple domains, a higher proportion of participants in the intervention group met dietary, exercise, and supplementation recommendations. Clinical outcome differences were exploratory, as the study was not powered for these end points. Qualitative analysis revealed 3 mechanisms, such as empowerment and self-efficacy, practice and persistence, and systemic/environmental support, through which the intervention influenced experiences and practices. Conclusions: The experiential class plus online logging model is feasible and acceptable in a real-world antenatal setting. Although limited by a small sample size, findings suggest that the intervention improves maternal knowledge, health practices, and service experiences and may inform future adequately powered trials to evaluate pregnancy outcomes. Qualitative insights highlight mechanisms of health practice change and provide contextual depth, underscoring the value of mixed methods designs in maternal health research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.