Geofencing: Mobile Technology as a Health Promotion Tool to Raise Awareness of a Dental Clinic in Rural North Carolina

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to assess the use of geofence technology to raise awareness of a dental clinic in rural North Carolina. Methods:The catchment area of the dental clinic was defined by ZIP Codes.A geofence was identified, and cell phones within the perimeter were targeted for oral health message drops to occur over 3 months from April to June 2017. Surveys conducted twice, pre-and postintervention (message drop), evaluated change in community awareness of services available at the dental clinic. A cross-sectional analysis was used to measure the effect of the exposure to the geofence technology in survey respondents. Findings:The survey included 200 participants (100 pre-and 100 postintervention). There were no significant differences in race or age for pre-and postintervention survey groups. The majority of respondents were American Indians (47.0% pre, 58.6% post) or black (28.8% pre, 25.5% post). There was a statistically significant improvement in awareness of the dental clinic (P = .045) from pre-to postintervention. A significant increase was also observed in the question related to dental visits by the respondent or family member of the respondent (from 6.5% to 15.0%, P = .04). A more modest improvement was found in questions related to the cost of dental care, type of insurance accepted, and services provided. Conclusion:Geofencing has the potential to increase awareness of health care services and ultimately increase the number of patients receiving care.

Use of geofencing interventions in population health research: a scoping review

“…Most employed a pre/post study design to assess changes in measured outcome or feasibility and acceptability of the geofencing intervention (n=7; 78%) with two unblinded randomised control trials. Sample sizes ranged from 4 to 3443; one study’s intervention quantified its reach with the geofencing intervention displaying on 516 073 mobile phones, though these impressions do not represent unique individuals receiving the intervention 41. Most studies (n=7; 78%) were conducted in the USA, one in the UK42 and one in Spain 23.…”

“…Geofences in most studies (n=5) were fixed and programmed in the mobile application without participant input. These included hospital emergency departments,18 43 hospitals where participants worked44 45 and a specific rural dental clinic 41. Two studies used participants input in determining where to geofence related to smoking42 or problematic alcohol use 46.…”

“…UBeSafe intervention reported that all participants were able to trigger a hot zone where sexual contacts often took place and received a place-based prevention message 22. Finally, Wright et al ,41 used a pre/post design, and found increases in community knowledge about the dental clinic (p=0.045) and increased number of dental visits post intervention.…”

“…Four studies used a behavioural mechanism in their geofencing intervention 23 42 46 47. Four studies used a social mechanism which included informational support such as existence of a rural dental clinic41 and availability of menu grocery store items that were low in sodium 23 41 46 47. Additionally, participants were able to interact with counsellors though the application and review their data concerning visiting high-risk locations for further intervention46 or sharing context specific messages with other users on the application 23.…”

“…Position Health,43 Stat!45 and ResQ44 reported on how the intervention and data collected integrated into an existing health information system and described some data security procedures. CHESS46 and the Wright et al 41 intervention conducted some cost assessment regarding the delivery of the intervention or cost to the participant to use the participant. No study reported on compliance of the intervention or data collection mechanism compliance with national guidelines or federal statutes.…”