PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Mangam, Keith AU - Fiekowsky, Elana AU - Bagayoko, Moussa AU - Norris, Laura AU - Belemvire, Allison AU - Longhany, Rebecca AU - Fornadel, Christen AU - George, Kristen TI - Feasibility and Effectiveness of mHealth for Mobilizing Households for Indoor Residual Spraying to Prevent Malaria: A Case Study in Mali AID - 10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00381 DP - 2016 Jun 20 TA - Global Health: Science and Practice PG - 222--237 VI - 4 IP - 2 4099 - http://www.ghspjournal.org/content/4/2/222.short 4100 - http://www.ghspjournal.org/content/4/2/222.full SO - GLOB HEALTH SCI PRACT2016 Jun 20; 4 AB - Sending voice and/or text messages to mobilize households for spraying was more costly per structure and less effective at preparing structures than traditional door-to-door mobilization approaches supplemented with radio and town hall announcements. Challenges included: Lack of familiarity with mobile phones and with public health mobile messagingLack of face-to-face communication with mobilizers, making it easier to ignore mobilization messages and preventing trust-buildingLow literacy levelsGender differentials in access to mobile phonesComponents of mHealth are increasingly being added to development interventions worldwide. A particular case of interest is in Mali where the U.S. President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) Africa Indoor Residual Spraying (AIRS) Project piloted a mobile mass-messaging service in Koulikoro District in August 2014 to determine whether voice and/or text messages received on cell phones could effectively replace door-to-door mobilization for an indoor residual spraying (IRS) campaign. To measure the pilot’s effectiveness, we evaluated structure preparedness (all household and food items removed) in 3 pilot intervention villages compared with 3 villages prepared for spray through door-to-door mobilization that was modified by incorporating town hall meetings and radio spots. Structure preparedness was significantly lower in households mobilized through the mobile-messaging approach compared with the door-to-door approach (49% vs. 75%, respectively; P = .03). Spray coverage of targeted households also was significantly lower among the mobile-messaging villages than the door-to-door mobilization villages (86% vs. 96%, respectively; P = .02). The mobile-messaging approach, at US$8.62 per structure prepared, was both more costly and less effective than the door-to-door approach at US$1.08 per structure prepared. While literacy and familiarity with technology were major obstacles, it also became clear that by removing the face-to-face interactions between mobilizers and household residents, individuals were not as trusting or understanding of the mobilization messages. These residents felt it was easier to ignore a text or voice message than to ignore a mobilizer who could provide reassurances and preparation support. In addition, men often received the mobile messages, as they typically owned the mobile phones, while women—who were more likely to be at home at the time of spray—usually interacted with the door-to-door mobilizers. Future attempts at using mHealth approaches for similar IRS mobilization efforts in Mali should be done in a way that combines mHealth tools with more common human-based interventions, rather than as a stand-alone approach, and should be designed with a gender lens in mind. The choice of software used for mass messaging should also be considered to find a local option that is both less expensive and perhaps more attuned to the local context than a U.S.-based software solution.