Mixed-methods analysis shows positive learning outcomes and mHealth engagement in urban refugees, suggesting enhanced community support.
Background: Displaced populations in resource-constrained settings require tailored COVID-19 prevention strategies, and mobile health (mHealth) emerges as a cost-effective approach. This study aimed to evaluate engagement and learning outcomes of the Kukaa Salama – Staying Safe – mHealth intervention for enhancing COVID-19 prevention practices among urban refugee youth. Method: This mixed-methods analysis used cross-sectional data from refugee youth aged 16–24 in Kampala, Uganda. Standardized questionnaires were used to collect mHealth engagement data and socio-demographic information. Participants shared learning experiences through responses to SMS check-ins and weekly informational messages. t -test, χ 2 , and Fisher’s exact tests were conducted to examine associations between mHealth engagement and socio-demographic factors. Inductive thematic analysis was employed to analyse qualitative responses related to learning experiences. Results: Among 346 participants (174 cisgender women, 166 cisgender men, 6 transgender individuals; mean age: 21.2, SD: 2.6), most reported using SMS services (84.8 per cent) while a lower proportion engaged in WhatsApp group chats (67.4 per cent). Participants who were older, born in Burundi and higher-educated were more likely to share in WhatsApp multimedia groups; those born in Burundi were also more likely to use SMS services. Four themes of learning outcomes emerged: COVID-19 self-protection strategies; awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic and relevant knowledge; significance of community and mutual support; self-efficacy and perseverance. Conclusions: Findings offer insights into characteristics of engagement and specific learning outcomes from the Kukaa Salama intervention. Future mHealth programmes can leverage community-based and age-sensitive approaches to enhance mental health support for young urban refugee.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: