Please note this application is under active development. If you spot any errors or something isn't working, please contact us at evidence.service@wales.nhs.uk.
Systematic Review
This Cochrane review aimed to assess the effects of targeted client communication via mobile devices (TCCMD) on health behaviour, service use, health, and well‐being for maternal, neonatal and child health (MNCH).
The reviewers included 27 trials (17,463 participants). Trial populations were: pregnant and postpartum women (11 trials conducted in low‐, middle‐ or high‐income countries (LMHIC); pregnant and postpartum women living with HIV (three trials carried out in one lower middle‐income country); and parents of children under the age of five years (13 trials conducted in LMHIC). Most interventions (18) were delivered via text messages alone, one was delivered through voice calls only, and the rest were delivered through combinations of different communication channels, such as multimedia messages and voice calls. Only results relevant to this evidence map have been extracted below.
Pregnant and postpartum women
TCCMD versus digital non‐targeted communication: No studies reported behavioural, health, or well‐being outcomes for this comparison. For use of health services, there are uncertain effects for the presence of a skilled attendant at birth due to very low‐certainty evidence, and the intervention may make little or no difference to attendance for antenatal influenza vaccination [Risk ration (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.58], though the CI encompasses both benefit and harm (low‐certainty evidence).
Parents of children aged less than five years
TCCMD versus standard care: Based on 10 trials, TCCMD may modestly increase health service use (vaccinations and HIV care) (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.34; low‐certainty evidence); however, the effect estimates varied widely between studies.
TCCMD versus non‐digital TCC: TCCMD may increase attendance for vaccinations (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.28; low‐certainty evidence), and may make little or no difference to oral hygiene practices (low‐certainty evidence).
TCCMD versus digital non‐targeted communication: TCCMD may reduce attendance for vaccinations, but the CI encompasses both benefit and harm (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.20; low‐certainty evidence).
No trials in any population reported data on unintended consequences.
The effect of TCCMD for most outcomes is uncertain. There may be improvements for some outcomes using targeted communication but these findings were of low certainty. High‐quality, adequately powered trials and cost‐effectiveness analyses are required to reliably ascertain the effects and relative benefits of TCCMD. Future studies should measure potential unintended consequences, such as partner violence or breaches of confidentiality.