What's inside matters: an assessment of the family planning content of digital self-care platforms.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1186/s12978-024-01848-4
Sarah Brittingham, Lauren Mitchell, Trinity Zan
{"title":"What's inside matters: an assessment of the family planning content of digital self-care platforms.","authors":"Sarah Brittingham, Lauren Mitchell, Trinity Zan","doi":"10.1186/s12978-024-01848-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Digital technology has proliferated rapidly in low- and middle-income countries in recent decades. This trend will likely persist as costs decrease, dramatically expanding access to reproductive health and family planning (FP) information. As many digital tools aim to support informed choice among individuals with unmet contraceptive need, it is essential that high-quality information is provided. We set out to assess the accuracy and comprehensiveness of FP content in select user-facing digital self-care platforms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified 29 digital tools in circulation between 2018-2021 and selected 11 that met our eligibility criteria for analysis. Referencing global guidance documents such as the Family Planning Handbook, Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, and the Digital Health for Social and Behavior Change High Impact Practice Brief, we developed an original rubric outlining 12 key content areas necessary to support informed, person-centered counseling. We applied this to each tool, enabling assignment of a numerical score that represents content accuracy and comprehensiveness across the 12 key areas.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FP content of digital tools varied greatly in accuracy and comprehensiveness. Of the 12 identified key content areas, 5 were included in all 11 tools, while 6 were addressed inconsistently or not at all. Four content areas were the most accurate and comprehensive: complete list of modern methods, duration of protection, dual method use, and return to fertility. The lowest scoring content areas were side effect management, non-contraceptive benefits, effectiveness, side effects, and instructions for use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Complete, accurate, and evidence-based FP content is a foundational element of quality digital self-care. Inaccuracies and omissions can impact individual user experiences and decision-making in critical ways. FP content quality should be verified before digital tools are scaled or researched at the programmatic level. From this exercise, we developed a checklist for use in conjunction with global guidance documents to improve future FP content of user-facing digital tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":20899,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11290190/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-024-01848-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Digital technology has proliferated rapidly in low- and middle-income countries in recent decades. This trend will likely persist as costs decrease, dramatically expanding access to reproductive health and family planning (FP) information. As many digital tools aim to support informed choice among individuals with unmet contraceptive need, it is essential that high-quality information is provided. We set out to assess the accuracy and comprehensiveness of FP content in select user-facing digital self-care platforms.

Methods: We identified 29 digital tools in circulation between 2018-2021 and selected 11 that met our eligibility criteria for analysis. Referencing global guidance documents such as the Family Planning Handbook, Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, and the Digital Health for Social and Behavior Change High Impact Practice Brief, we developed an original rubric outlining 12 key content areas necessary to support informed, person-centered counseling. We applied this to each tool, enabling assignment of a numerical score that represents content accuracy and comprehensiveness across the 12 key areas.

Results: FP content of digital tools varied greatly in accuracy and comprehensiveness. Of the 12 identified key content areas, 5 were included in all 11 tools, while 6 were addressed inconsistently or not at all. Four content areas were the most accurate and comprehensive: complete list of modern methods, duration of protection, dual method use, and return to fertility. The lowest scoring content areas were side effect management, non-contraceptive benefits, effectiveness, side effects, and instructions for use.

Conclusions: Complete, accurate, and evidence-based FP content is a foundational element of quality digital self-care. Inaccuracies and omissions can impact individual user experiences and decision-making in critical ways. FP content quality should be verified before digital tools are scaled or researched at the programmatic level. From this exercise, we developed a checklist for use in conjunction with global guidance documents to improve future FP content of user-facing digital tools.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内容很重要:数字自我保健平台的计划生育内容评估。
背景:近几十年来,数字技术在中低收入国家迅速普及。随着成本的降低,这一趋势可能会持续下去,从而极大地扩展了生殖健康和计划生育(FP)信息的获取渠道。由于许多数字工具旨在支持避孕需求未得到满足的个人做出知情选择,因此提供高质量的信息至关重要。我们着手评估了部分面向用户的数字自我保健平台中计划生育内容的准确性和全面性:我们确定了 2018-2021 年间流通的 29 种数字工具,并选择了符合我们资格标准的 11 种工具进行分析。参考《计划生育手册》、《避孕药具使用医疗资格标准》和《数字健康促进社会和行为改变高影响力实践简报》等全球指导文件,我们开发了一个原创的评分标准,概述了支持知情、以人为本的咨询所需的 12 个关键内容领域。我们对每种工具都采用了这一评分标准,从而能够对 12 个关键领域的内容准确性和全面性进行数字评分:数字工具的 FP 内容在准确性和全面性方面差异很大。在已确定的 12 个关键内容领域中,有 5 个领域包含在所有 11 个工具中,有 6 个领域的内容不一致或根本没有涉及。有四个方面的内容最为准确和全面:现代方法的完整列表、保护期限、双重方法的使用以及恢复生育能力。得分最低的内容是副作用管理、非避孕益处、有效性、副作用和使用说明:结论:完整、准确、循证的计划生育内容是高质量数字自我保健的基本要素。不准确和遗漏会对个人用户的体验和决策产生重要影响。在计划层面对数字工具进行扩展或研究之前,应核实 FP 内容的质量。通过这项工作,我们制定了一份核对表,与全球指导文件结合使用,以改进面向用户的数字工具的未来 FP 内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Reproductive Health
Reproductive Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
220
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Reproductive Health focuses on all aspects of human reproduction. The journal includes sections dedicated to adolescent health, female fertility and midwifery and all content is open access. Reproductive health is defined as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being in all matters relating to the reproductive system, at all stages of life. Good reproductive health implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do so. Men and women should be informed about and have access to safe, effective, affordable, and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, and the right to appropriate health-care services that enable women to safely go through pregnancy and childbirth.
期刊最新文献
Burden of uterine cancer in China from 1990 to 2021 and 15-year projection: a systematic analysis and comparison with global levels. "I managed to stand on my own. I saved my baby's life.": qualitative analysis of birth experiences from women living with HIV in Cape Town, South Africa. Assessment of the impact an educational intervention on post-traumatic stress disorder and social cognitive theory constructs in women with sexual assault experience: a study protocol for a clinical trial. The reasons for and influences of unintended teenage pregnancy in Kericho county, Kenya: a qualitative study. Men's involvement in family planning programs: an exploratory study from Karachi, Pakistan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1