Summary of findings 3. Digital targeted client communication via mobile devices compared to digital non‐targeted client communication (pregnant and postpartum women) for improving maternal, neonatal, and child health.
| Digital targeted client communication via mobile devices compared to digital non‐targeted client communication (pregnant and postpartum women) for improving maternal, neonatal, and child health | ||||||
| Patient or population: pregnant and postpartum women Setting: community and healthcare settings Intervention: digital targeted client communication via mobile devices Comparison: digital non‐targeted client communication | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with digital non‐targeted communication | Risk with digital targeted client communication | |||||
| Health status and well‐being – maternal mortality and morbidity | No studies reported this outcome. | — | (0 studies) | — | The effect of the intervention on maternal morbidity and mortality is unknown as there was no direct evidence. | |
| Health status and well‐being – neonatal mortality and morbidity | No studies reported this outcome. | — | (0 studies) | — | The effect of the intervention on neonatal morbidity and mortality is unknown as there was no direct evidence. | |
| Health behaviour change: breastfeeding | No studies reported this outcome. | — | (0 studies) | — | The effect of the intervention on breastfeeding is unknown as there was no direct evidence. | |
| Service utilisation – attendance antenatal care appointments (attendance for antenatal influenza vaccination) | 310 per 1000 | 326 per 100 (220 to 490) | RR 1.05 (0.71 to 1.58) | 204 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b | The intervention may make little or no difference to attendance for antenatal influenza vaccination, but the CI includes both an increase and a decrease in attendance. |
|
Service utilisation: intrapartum care – skilled attendant at birth Follow‐up: at delivery |
875 per 1000 | 875 per 1000 (604 to 1000) | RR 1.00 (0.69 to 1.45) | 16 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowb,c | We are uncertain of the effect of the intervention on the proportion of women having a skilled attendant at birth because the certainty of the evidence was very low. |
| Unintended consequences | No studies reported this outcome. | — | (0 studies) | — | The effect of the intervention on unintended consequences is unknown as there was no direct evidence. | |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
aDowngraded one level for imprecision: 95% confidence intervals that encompass a potential harmful effect and a potential beneficial effect of the intervention. bDowngraded one level for risk of bias: trial at unclear risk of bias for several domains. cDowngraded two levels for risk of bias: trial at unclear or high risk of bias across all domains.