Question · asked by 1 review
Digital targeted client communication via mobile devices vs standard care or no intervention (pregnant and postpartum women with HIV): Service utilisation: intrapartum care – skilled attendant at birth
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Digital targeted client communication via mobile devices vs standard care or no intervention (pregnant and postpartum women) Service utilisation: intrapartum care – skilled attendant at birth · pregnant and postpartum women Targeted client communication via mobile devices for improving maternal, neonatal, and child health (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Targeted client communication via mobile devices for improving maternal, neonatal, and child health 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.