SPECIAL ARTICLE
Mobile Phones for Maternal Health in Rural Bihar
Reducing the Access Gap?
Marine Al Dahdah, Alok Kumar
Health programmes that are using mobile phones to
improve maternal health in rural India are examined.
Presented by its promoters as a universal, accessible
and “smart” empowering technology, how mobile
devices transform gender inequalities on the ground is
analysed. By using empirical data collected on a global
mHealth programme deployed in Bihar, how mHealth
devices negate the multifactorial dimension of gender
and health inequalities is explained, and also how
these devices can reinforce inequalities on the
ground is examined.
Marine Al Dahdah (marine.aldahdah@gmail.com) is a sociologist at
Centre de Recherche, Médecine, Sciences, Santé, Santé Mentale, Société
(Cermes3), CNRS – Université Paris Descartes—EHESS, Paris and a
research associate at Centre for Social Sciences and Humanities, Delhi.
Alok Kumar (aalokkashyap.in@gmail.com) is an independent consultant
for the World Bank in Bihar.
50
I
n 2016, seven billion people were mobile phone users, thus
propelling the mobile phone ahead of other information
and communication technologies (ICTs). Whether it be mobile
personal health records or confidential clinical data sent via
text messaging, these devices are increasingly used to provide
“better” health services in a context of reduced health expenditure and increased involvement of patients. Substantial research has been conducted on eHealth—health on the internet—in recent years, mainly regarding the nature and the value of health information on the web (Adams and Berg 2004),
the redefinition of the roles of lay and expert in health, and the
subsequent transformation of the patient–caregiver relationship
(Henwood et al 2003). Yet, very little research has been conducted on the use of the mobile phone and wireless technology
within health programmes, called mHealth or mobile health,
and especially in the global South, or in development contexts.
However, the impact of mobile technologies on healthcare in
such contexts raises critical questions that become particularly
acute in the context of increased access to mobile phones in India.
The recent multiplication of mHealth worldwide illustrates
the overall trend towards the globalisation and technologisation of biomedicine. The widespread idea, that digital technologies improve the quality of care, reduce health disparities
and optimise health systems, takes shape in a diverse set of
technical devices: mHealth, telemedicine, big data, etc.
This paper offers a glance at this new field of mHealth
through the study of a particular maternal mHealth project
deployed in Bihar, based on fieldwork conducted in 2015 in
two districts and five blocks, among almost 100 women, 30
community health workers (CHWs) and 20 implementers, all
involved in a maternal mobile health project. We propose to
focus more specifically on gender inequalities that these sociotechnical devices are revealing and even enhancing on the
ground, and how these are entangled with socio-economic
and health inequalities. Whereas mobile health is presented by
its implementers as a neutral, universal, accessible and “smart”
technology to improve health in Bihar, we will analyse how it,
in fact, reinforces inequalities on the ground.
A ‘Simply Brilliant’ Innovation
Using mobile phones to access and relay health information in developing countries is the topic everyone in health and technology is talking about right now. There’s a reason for that, of course. It’s one of
those “simply brilliant” innovations that seem to make perfect sense.
… Can a cell phone save a life? It’s extremely possible. (Newman 2011)
MARCH 17, 2018
vol lIiI no 11
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Access to mobile phones is becoming increasingly common
over the globe, and is expanding much faster than access to
the internet (ITU 2013). mHealth figures are mainly coming
from mobile operators and mobile technology providers. They
estimated the global market in 2013 between 23,000 and
1,00,000 apps worldwide, a rather approximate estimation
that focuses only on apps that are accessible on the major United
States-based app stores (Pew Research Centre 2012). Only
smartphones can use those kinds of apps. Thus, most of them
are not yet reachable for the majority of the developing countries. Thereby, most of the projects deployed in resource-poor
settings are SMS-based or vocal services, which can be used on
a basic handset. Mobile health projects and applications
emerged at the beginning of the 2000s, and have been popping up in the developing countries for the past five years.
Aware of the growing deployments of mobile technology,
international health actors have been trying to better characterise this phenomenon. In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) described mHealth as the practice of medicine
and public health assisted by mobile technologies, such as
mobile phones, patient monitors, “personal digital assistants”
(PDA s) and other wireless technologies (WHO 2011). The WHO
segments mHealth according to a typology of projects that
include: communication from individuals to health services
(call centres, helplines or hotlines), communication from
health services to individuals (appointment or treatment
reminders, awareness and mobilisation campaigns on health
issues), and communication between health professionals
(mobile telemedicine, patient monitoring, aid to diagnosis
and decision-making).
The innovative and transformative component of mHealth
constitutes a central argument to promote its spread. “Mobile
phones and wireless internet end isolation, and will therefore
prove to be the most transformative technology of economic
development of our time,” as Jeffrey Sachs had already advocated in 2008 (World Bank 2012: 1). This call for technological
change—its future and promises—is structuring the field of
mHealth, its organisation and actors. Actually, innovation
studies identified those dynamics as characteristic of innovative devices. In line with the work of Joly et al (2013) on the
economy of technoscientific promises, or Flichy (2003) on
imaginaries of innovation, or Rajan (2012) on promise as a
symptom of technoscientific capitalism, our corpus analysis1
brings out a clear “promising communication” at stake in
mHealth discourses.
All these promises come together to promote the mobile
phone as a “simply brilliant” innovation for health. Some of
these promises—unrelated to health—are fed by the general
hopes and hypes related to the mobile phone. Its ubiquity and
accessibility allow everybody to be easily connected with anybody, anywhere, and at anytime, making this technology
omnipotent and universal at the same time. Mobile phones are
key to the economic growth of developing countries. “Studies
have suggested that increased mobile ownership is linked to
higher economic growth. It is also likely to have twice as large
an impact on economic growth in developing countries as in
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
MARCH 17, 2018
vol lIiI no 11
developed ones because the starting point of infrastructure in
poorer countries is so much lower in terms of landlines and
broadband access” (UNDP 2012: 10). These devices serve as
substitutes for a whole bunch of useful tools that you could
hardly find in the poorest countries: “In developing countries
mobile phones not only complement other technologies but
also substitute for them—for example, as cameras, debit cards,
or voice recorders” (World Bank 2012: 4).
In addition to these “mobile promises,” promises linked to
the health sector are expanding the whole promising tendency
of these discourses: “The use of mobile and wireless technologies to support the achievement of health objectives
(mHealth) has the potential to transform the face of health
service delivery across the globe” (WHO 2011: 9).
More Than Just Healthcare?
Three major promises—effectiveness, cost efficiency and empowerment—are constantly used to promote mHealth: “Mobile
applications can lower costs and improve the quality of healthcare as well as shift behaviour to strengthen prevention, all of
which can improve health outcomes over the long term”
(Qiang et al 2012: 9). These three promises are at the foundation
of mHealth. While these provide content and credit to this new
field, these also raise expectations that might not be fulfilled.
Effectiveness of healthcare and health workers has improved
thanks to mobile and digital health data. Instantly updated
data, collected on-site, facilitate emergency and crisis management (Callaway et al 2012). Mobile apps can improve the quality and accuracy of diagnosis by compiling “good practices,”
international protocols, analysis of personal health records,
and offering personalised treatments in accordance with these
indicators (Alepis and Lambrinidis 2013). mHealth can reach
patients wherever they are, even if there are no health facilities around. In developed countries, isolated patients can call
and exchange health data directly with health professionals
through mobile apps (Sankaranarayanan and Sallach 2014).
This new connectivity can emerge even without mobile
phones, through CHWs sent to the isolated communities to
collect health data via the mobile phone, evaluate the needs
and connect these populations instantly with health facilities
(Källander et al 2013).
Meanwhile, mHealth is also presented as a low-cost mean
of health expenses rationalisation and even a way of downsizing
health expenditure. By optimising medical time, by avoiding unnecessary hospitalisations, redundant exams or superfluous
medicines, by preventing missed appointments or interruption
of treatment, mHealth reduces health costs. Moreover, mHealth
combined with mBanking will ensure secure out-of-pocket
payments even if patients do not have any bank accounts, and
will allow uninsured patients to apply for micro-insurance
schemes to cover their health expenses (World Bank 2012).
Finally, the promise of “empowerment” is crucial as it is
the only “human” or “patient-centred” justification for these
devices, the only one involving citizens and not only the
optimisation of healthcare services (Qiang et al 2012: 39). Far
from its original meaning—a grass-roots acquisition of power
51
SPECIAL ARTICLE
or reinforcement of power—empowerment, in the case of
mHealth, is mainly reduced to a relative autonomy or a
limited accountability of patients. This promise echoes the
individualistic and liberal vision of empowerment adopted by
international aid agencies in early 2000 and described by
several scholars.
Initially, the term was most commonly associated with alternative
approaches to development, with their concern for local, grassroots
community-based movements and initiatives, and their growing disenchantment with mainstream, top-down approaches to development. More recently, empowerment has been adopted by mainstream
development agencies as well, albeit more to improve productivity
within the status quo than to foster social transformation. Empowerment has thus become a ‘motherhood’ term, comfortable and unquestionable, something very different institutions and practices seem to
be able to agree on. (Parpart et al 2003: 24)
The empowering effect of mHealth is seen in the idea of an
increased degree of autonomy for patients from the healthcare
system and also the vision of shared accountability. Thus,
health cannot fully be delegated to health professionals; patients
have to shoulder their share of responsibility, too. For mHealth
promoters, mobile phones play a key role in this empowerment
through the optimisation of prevention and treatments:
(i) Easy access to health information via mobile phones will
lead to sound health behaviour. By improving the understanding of preventive actions, risky behaviour will be avoided.
These “positive health-seeking behaviours” will improve the
health of entire populations in the long run.
(ii) A better understanding of treatments will help patients follow medical instructions and prescriptions. Studies have been
already conducted on treatment adherence for chronic diseases
in Western countries to show that alerts, reminders and followups through the mobile phone help patients follow instructions
and treatments, thus the “empowered chronic patient” does not
have to go to the health facility too often and is more in charge
of their own health.
Closer to a liberal than a liberating vision of empowerment,
the technological empowerment of mHealth maximises individual interest and thus will ensure the efficiency of healthcare. Maternal mHealth projects deployed in the developing
world constitute fascinating illustrations of this techno-liberal
vision of empowerment. We shall now introduce the project
we selected to do an in-depth study of mHealth.
The ‘Most Promising mHealth Project’
Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia have in common the highest
mobile phone and mobile internet growth rate worldwide
(+40% in 2013, twice the rate of the rest of the world). However, these regions also have the shortest life expectancy
at birth, the highest infant and maternal mortality rates
worldwide, and the worst indicators related to the different
development goals fixed by the United Nations. The idea
that the growing phenomenon of the mobile phone could lead
to a better health situation for Africans and South Asians rose
and took shape in more and more mHealth projects in these
regions. To better understand this phenomenon, we did fieldwork in Ghana and India in 2014 and 2015 to study several
52
mHealth projects,2 and among them Mobile Technology for
Community Health (Motech), the “most promising mHealth
project.”
The most promising mHealth project that I have seen, called Motech,
focuses on maternal and child health in Ghana. Community health
workers with phones visit villages and submit digital forms with vital
information about newly pregnant women. The system then sends
health messages to the expectant mothers, such as weekly reminders
about good pre-natal care. The system also sends data to the health
ministry, giving policymakers an accurate and detailed picture of
health conditions in the country. Those working on AIDS, tuberculosis,
malaria, family planning, nutrition, and other global health issues can
use the same platform, so that all parts of a country’s health system
are sharing information and responding appropriately in real-time.
This is the dream, but it works only if frontline workers are inputting
data, health ministries are acting on it, and patients are using the
information that they receive on their phones. (Gates 2012)
The Motech project was launched in 2010 in Ghana by the
Grameen Foundation with the financial support of the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal of Motech is to improve
maternal, newborn and child health outcomes in rural developing contexts. Its aim is to support women during their pregnancy and until a year after birth. This project combines modules of health information for women and health professionals, identification and tracking of patients, collection and processing of health data, SMS alerts and voice messages. The aim
for Motech is to become a global platform used worldwide for
different health issues, to sustain and increase the quality and
accessibility of health information and care. The Motech project was then launched in India (in Bihar) in 2012 based on the
Ghanaian experience. In this paper, we are presenting a part
of our analysis on the Bihar experiment of the “direct to consumer” application of Motech called Kilkari.
Kilkari was launched in Bihar in 2013 as a part of a bigger
project that encloses three mHealth applications. It was first
launched in eight “innovative” districts and extended to 20
districts afterwards. Kilkari is the only application directly targeting pregnant women. It is a vocal messaging system that
provides maternal health information to pregnant women and
mothers with children younger than 12 months. The weekly
messages on pregnancy address context-specific factors like
nutritional advice, and encourage women to seek antenatal
and postnatal care by sending alerts and reminders for clinical
care and visits. It is a fee-based mobile phone service, that for
`1 sends one voice message in “rural Hindi.”
We went to two of the eight pilot districts where the subscriptions rates to Kilkari were the highest in the state. We
selected five blocks among those with the highest subscription
rates to organise the fieldwork. We met implementers of Kilkari
in Delhi and the selected districts, and the managers of the
primary health centres of the blocks that connected us with
the facilitators (accredited social health activist [ASHA] facilitators) of the cWhs. We then organised focus groups with community health workers involved in Kilkari and, thanks to
them, organised focus groups with women in 13 villages. All
the interviews were conducted by Marine Al Dahdah and Alok
Kumar, and were fully transcribed in English and imported in
nVivo software along with the field notes to conduct a qualitative
MARCH 17, 2018
vol lIiI no 11
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
analysis. This analysis revealed the various power issues and
inequalities at stake. We will focus first on gender inequalities.
Kilkari: A Gendered Technology?
From the beginning, the project perfectly integrated gender
issues and tried to encompass it by talking only to men:
When you see our promotion around Kilkari, you see a man on the
theme, who says if you are the best father of the village you should
subscribe to Kilkari. it’s a service that was targeted to men, since they
hold the money and the service need to be bought, the service was targeted to men. All the promotion that happened was targeted to males.3
However, those campaigns did not work at all and the implementers had to turn towards a more efficient way to reach
the women through the CWHs: ASHAs and anganwadi workers
(AWWs). We met 99 women in Bihar, 90 young women between 18 years and 30 years of age and nine mothers-in-law
and mothers who subscribed to Kilkari for their daughters-inlaw or daughters.
Even in our sample that was structured to find Kilkari users,
more than one quarter of our interviewees never subscribed to
the service. And among the one that subscribed to it, less than
half of them listened to more than four messages. Less than
10% of the 99 interviewed women listened to the messages for
more than six months, which is too short a period to provide a
follow up of women during pregnancy and until the the infant
turns one year old. So, why do they not subscribe to or why do
they drop out of the system so quickly?
There are a lot of reasons for the non-adherence to Kilkari,
but we will only evoke the ones that are related to gender. The
first one is access to a mobile phone: “I did not subscribe because my husband carries mobile for his work, how would I listen to it if I subscribe.”4 The second one is the fee issue, the fact
that the service costs `1 is a major cause of disruption: “Deduction of `1 is expensive for me.” And, the third major issue is
related to serious technical problems that lead to the discontinuity of the service even if the client paid for it: “Calls stopped
coming even when there was credit in the mobile account.”5
The service is creating conflicts between men and women on
these three major points: “My husband said that it’s not necessary to listen to it and money gets deducted. He wasn’t ready to
understand when I tried to convince him.” “My brother told
that lot of money gets deducted, so he deactivated it. He said
he would not give me the mobile anymore.” “My husband disconnects the calls anyway. Since money gets deducted. He
would deactivate it.”6
This can tell us that the service is not working well, but it
also tells us how gender inequalities are accentuated by this
technical device. Several science and technology studies scholars have clearly shown that access to ICTs is harder for women,
because they do not have free access to hardware—computers
or mobile phones are owned by the husband—but also because those technologies are conceptualised, developed and
deployed by men (Henwood and Wyatt 2000). Among ICTs,
mobile phones are particularly interesting, because gender
inequalities are accentuated less than with using computers or
accessing the internet. Because, mobile phones are cheaper
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
MARCH 17, 2018
vol lIiI no 11
and easier to use than computers or the internet, they seem to
be a more “egalitarian” technology, but a woman is still 14%
less likely to own a mobile phone than a man in the Global
South. This figure increases to 38% if she lives in South Asia,
and goes even higher in rural and poor areas (GSMA 2013).
Almost half of the women we met in Bihar had their own
phone, but these women are over-represented in our study as
compared to the general population because they were the
ones targeted to subscribe to Kilkari. In rural India, accessing
mobile phones is still an important issue for women. Women
still rely a lot on men to access this technology. Half of the
women we met in Bihar were relying on men (husband, or
brothers or fathers-in-law) to access mobile phones: “There
when I was with my husband, he kept the mobile with him,
here at my mother’s home, my brother keeps it.”7 “Their husbands or in-laws may have mobiles but they (women) would
not be able to use it.”8 We found that 70% of the women who
own a mobile are married to men who work outside Bihar and
are not at home. So, women whose husbands work and live
outside Bihar are more likely to own a phone. Ownership of
the mobile is not the only gendered issue. Its uses are also very
interesting to study and provide insight on the failure of Kilkari.
Gendered Mobile Use
During the interviews, we asked about what a mobile can do.
Perceptions of this are different from the real use of this object.
These perceptions show only the possibilities of the object:
“Mobile has made our lives much more convenient. If something happens, one can communicate using it right away. In
case of an emergency, mobile can be used to transmit information.”9 “Earlier it took lot of time to communicate; now it is
faster. In case of emergency, one can make a call. It can be
used to call people at distant places or to use internet and
know new things. News can be read on mobiles.” However,
when you ask about what they can do with the mobile, you
realise that mobile services are not so accessible to these women:
“The benefit of mobile is not much because call rates is not
affordable.”10 “Sometimes for two months, there is no credit in
the mobile. Only if there is an emergency and someone is going to
the market, I will ask the person to get it recharged.”11
Women are facing multiple difficulties in accessing and
using mobile phones in Bihar. First, access to mobile phones is
still a male prerogative: “I do not touch the mobile. He (husband) says that I don’t know how to operate it, I may spoil it
and it may stop working.”12 Women who own a mobile phone
often get old ones that are not functional, with broken screens
that freeze or shut down and cannot be charged: “I have my
own mobile but it does not work since last 15 days. (Another
woman, reacting) I also have a mobile which is not functional,
it doesn’t get charged. It has to be repaired.”13
Women who do have functional mobile phones, most of them
are using it for incoming calls and emergency calls. They do not
have smartphones (most of the rural Bihari men too do not). But,
they do not even have phones with basic functionalities like a music
player or basic access to 2G internet, which we can find frequently on the men’s phones. Almost none of them have ever sent
53
SPECIAL ARTICLE
a text message, mostly because of literacy issues in the most
illiterate state of India where 50% of the women are illiterate.
Also, the basic phones they use cannot support the Devanagari
script, the only script that they know, if they know, how to
read and write. None of them have ever accessed the internet
via their mobile phone or used any mobile banking service.
For women who own a mobile phone, men are still controlling their usage through phone credit. Nearly all the women
we met are depending on men to recharge their phone: “I give
a missed call to his number using another mobile and then he
calls me back. Sometimes it takes 10 days, sometimes even one
month to get it recharged. What to do, I am helpless.”14 None of
the women we met regularly recharge their mobile credit by
themselves. It is most of the time their husbands or the men in
their household (brothers, fathers-in-law) who take care of it.
They can be called, but never have enough credit to place calls
on a regular basis. This woman, like many others, explained to
us that her husband wants to know why and who she wants to
call: “He tells me, why do you always need to have credit in it
when I get it recharged whenever you want to make a call.”15
Thus, studying the use of mobile phones among these women
shows important gender inequalities, in terms of access to
phones, credit and functionalities of the phone.
Financial inequalities are also very wide in terms of credit
expenses. When a woman owns a phone, she will spend 20
times less credit than her husband in one month: “In my husband’s mobile, the expenditure is always much more, `300–
`400 per month, but in my mobile, I get it recharged only by
`10– `20 per month.”16 These inequalities are reflecting the
current gender inequalities of Indian society and more specifically of rural Bihar, where only 10% of the women are getting any job or salary for their farm work. They have little
control over the household expenditure.17 These uses of
mobile phones also highlight mobility inequalities that seem
antithetical to the promises of mobile phones: “We are women.
Some family allow women to go out, others do not.”18 “I am
not allowed outside because I am daughter-n-law.”19 Women
are not allowed to go outside the house or to roam around unnecessarily. It is also the reason why they cannot recharge the
phone by themselves: “Here the recharge is not available in
shops. One has to go to ‘B’ for this (2–3 km away). How will
the ladies go there?”20 And, mobile phones reinforce this confinement in the house since women can be contacted from
afar without their going out.
By studying this programme in Bihar, we realised that mobile phones are a new way to limit women’s mobility and also
to exert a new form of control from afar for husbands who are
around or not staying in the village at all. Our Bihar fieldwork
shows how mobile phone can objectify male domination
(Bourdieu 2002). Uses of mobile phones are different for a
woman and a man in Bihar. Mobile phones can reinforce male
authority on women, and embody the existing male domination
that is well-rooted in rural Bihar. This fieldwork highlights
how a technical object can enhance men’s power over women
and limit women’s autonomy further more. We would like to
bring this analysis to a more complex level by putting gender
54
at the intersection of other inequalities, thanks to the concept
on intersectionality (Crenshaw 1989; Yuval-Davis 2015). Indeed, if mobile phones can constitute an instrument of male
domination, the varying degrees of determination of the device are set by broader socio-economic and political factors.
mHealth and Intersecting Inequalities
Used as a dominant analytical frame, gender reveals inequalities between men and women, and male domination at stake in
the studied technological artefacts. However, gender, to be relevant, has to be envisioned as consubstantial with other forms
of inequalities, which will play a fundamental role in the way
mHealth is shifting and transforming unequal relationships of
power. The concept of situated intersectionality analyses intersecting inequalities and forms of power at stake in specific
contexts and the offsetting mechanisms that technological
devices can generate:
Situated intersectionality analysis, therefore, in all its facets, is highly
sensitive to the geographical, social and temporal locations of the particular individual or collective social actors examined by it, contested,
shifting and multiple as they usually are. (Yuval-Davis 2015: 95)
From micro to macro, from the individual to the political
level, we examine the different domains where technological
inequalities are revealed and generated by Motech. This
study paper is not exhaustive; it draws attention to some of the
major inequalities and forms of domination we identified on
the ground, and their articulation with gender.
Interpersonal level: Subscription to Motech is always done
by the intermediary, that is, the CWHs. Yet, the patient–caregiver relationship has already been analysed as very unequal
and a source of symbolic, and sometimes physical violence,
especially in developing contexts (d’Oliveira et al 2002). This
interpersonal relation is going to play an important role in the
enrolment of women in the Motech project. In Bihar, where
Motech is a fee-based service, CHWs are key actors. Mostly, it
is because they have been convinced or pushed by health
workers that women will subscribe to it.
In Bihar, women have a trust-based, but also subordinate,
relationship with CHWs. ASHA s and AWWs might be the only
interlocutors in the village on health issues, and the majority
of our interviewees declared that the CHW of their village is a
reference person for them and that CHWs were really supportive during their pregnancies: “We believe and do what
ASHA tells us. ASHA gives us the right information.”21 Thus,
women subscribe to Kilkari because the CHW they know
asked them to do so. They do it on a voluntary basis, but most
of the time they trust the CHW, they do not know exactly what
the service is about, and in some cases that they have to pay
for it: “AWW and ASHA, whatever they say, I trust it.”22 “I asked
her (the ASHA) why is she asking me to give her my mobile.
She told me that she would subscribe me to Kilkari and
Dr Anita would call me and I would receive calls related to
care during pregnancy and every week `1 will be deducted for
this service.”23 “I was not told that money would get deducted
for the calls.”24
MARCH 17, 2018
vol lIiI no 11
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
From the beginning, the relationship between women and
CHWs is not egalitarian, like any other patient–caregiver
relationship, but financial inequalities are a major issue in the
context of Kilkari. The CHWs are receiving a salary (for AWWs)
or incentives (for ASHAs) for the community work they are doing. Thanks to this, they can have greater financial autonomy
than the other women of the community and Kilkari can widen this difference further.
Indeed, Kilkari offers phone credit incentives for CHWs who
subscribe women to the service. Women are paying `1 per
message, and the CHW that subscribed them gets `10 of phone
credit per subscription after four weeks and `20 after eight
weeks of continuous subscription. This incentive system, the
fact that women have to pay per message, and that CHWs are
getting phone credit for that, generates frictions that both
women and CHWs reported during the fieldwork: “One woman
told me: credit gets deducted from my account and goes to
your mobile account.”25 The phone balance credited as incentive
to CHWs is low and many times they do not receive it because
the subscriptions do not last long enough, but this system still
creates a visible financial imbalance. Thus, Motech is in fact
making more apparent and aggravates the inequalities between
women and CHWs.
Community level: Community constitutes another nexus of
inequalities revealed by Motech. Community can take a variety
of forms depending on the social structure of the studied
group of people. But, for our Bihar study, we will focus on
family and caste, on their impact on Motech and vice versa.
In Bihar, access to mobile phones and to Kilkari is easier for
women who live or went back to their mother’s family during
their pregnancy and for delivering the baby. Their mother’s
family might be more liberal and attentive to their daughters’
well being than the in-laws’ family, and ready to pay for a
service that can help their daughters during their pregnancy.
Almost one quarter of the Motech subscribers we met were
effectively staying at their mother’s house. Going back to
their own family is a favourable factor for women to access
Kilkari and can temporarily offset the in-laws’ domination
over daughters-in-law.
At a meso level, the caste system also plays an important
role to access mobile phones and Kilkari. Far from being representative of caste diversity, our sample does not give us the
possibility to study in detail the inequalities linked to the
extremely complex caste stratification. Here, we just give a
broad view on the caste–gender intersection in accessing
mobile technologies and mHealth because this intersection
was brought many times by our interviewees on the ground.
Thus, caste apparently played a role in the inclusion or exclusion of women in the Kilkari project. The Scheduled Castes
(SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) still represent the majority of
poor people and face tremendous discriminations everyday
(Jaffrelot 2002).
As we have seen in the villages of Bihar, caste is still a structure-giving authority in rural India. Thus, women as well as
CHWs state that access to mobile phones and Kilkari is more
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
MARCH 17, 2018
vol lIiI no 11
difficult for women from the SC community: “Out of a population
of 2,500 individuals, not even a single woman subscribed to
Kilkari. Here, most of the people belong to SC and do not have
access to mobile phones.”26 Women from these communities
would then be almost systematically excluded from a programme like Motech, either because they really do not have
access to mobile phones and would be excluded like any other
women, or because CHWs are less inclined to working these
communities and to convince lower-caste women to subscribe
to Kilkari.
Economic level: The financial accessibility of Motech is multiform and implies different kinds of economic inequalities.
Financial resources are first necessary to acquire a mobile
phone, then to make it functional, by bearing the regular
costs of battery charging and phone credit (two additional and
unavoidable costs), and finally to pay for it messages every
week. In addition to that, Kilkari messages are encouraging
women to attend health facilities, which incurs substantial
costs for women. Indeed, to be fully efficient, it is supposed to
change women’s behaviour and to bring them to health facilities. However, health facilities are not financially or geographically accessible for the women we met in Bihar. For instance,
women in the study related the dire financial situations arising
from institutional deliveries: “Transport to the hospital is
through a jeep and it charges `500– `600 to take us to the hospital. Ambulance never comes here.”27 “I had to spend money
on each and everything, medicines, injections, food. The nurse
also demanded money saying that I gave birth to a boy. Even
when a girl is born, she demands money but more money is
demanded if a boy is born.”28
The cost of healthcare constitutes for many a central problem to accessing health facilities and delivery there. These
healthcare and mobile costs are adding up. Kilkari provides
messages that speak of free access to maternity services at the
facility level, even if women will in fact pay for these informally. Any health programme that encourages women to
attend health facilities should put equal emphasis on improving quality of care and its financial accessibility before
advertising for it.
In rural India, men would be automatically involved to meet
these financial needs, since most of the women in rural Bihar
have no financial autonomy. And, even if these women are
among the 10% of Bihari women who earn money for their
work and can cover mobile expenses by themselves, the money
needed for healthcare is too much and remains dependent on
the men of the household. These gendered inequalities in accessing healthcare have been identified by many scholars (Kuhlmann and Annandale 2010) and have led to specific policies to
make up for the inaccessibility that women face. These compensatory policies invite us to move to the last nexus of inequalities we want to analyse here: the political.
Political level: Healthcare structural reforms in the 1990s
have led to a wider “commodification” of health, through
fee-based health services and increased out-of-pocket expenses
55
SPECIAL ARTICLE
(Kuhlmann and Annandale 2010). In India, like in many other
emerging countries, the government has experienced a diminishing role in the health sector by subcontracting many health
activities to private stakeholders (Shewade and Kumar Aggarwal 2012). These structural reforms have been clearly identified as disproportionately placing women at a disadvantage
(Sen and Östlin 2010). Because women are heavily dependent
on public primary health centres (PHCs) that are providing maternal and infant care, healthcare reforms that are affecting
public structures strike them harder than males and lead to a
significant increase in maternal mortality (Ekwempu et al
1990). India recently put in place specific maternal entitlement
policies to make up for the financial difficulties pregnant women face in accessing health facilities.
The Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) launched in 2005 is a
national programme to promote institutional delivery. It targets specifically the 10 states of India where institutional deliveries are the lowest (low-performing states), Bihar among
them, where financial entitlements are twice as much as those
of other states (high-performing states). To benefit from the
JSY, women have to be registered and gave birth at a PHC or
public hospital. Women will need a bank account, a birth certificate, and proof of delivery in a public facility. In Bihar, she
will then get `1,400 if she lives in a rural area and `1,000 in
an urban area.
Women in our sample think that accessing this scheme is
too complicated and expensive because of the mandatory requirement of a bank account and formalities that entail bribes:
“For the registration of the birth we have to give `200, normally this is supposed to be almost free.”29 “To receive the
maternity benefit of `1,400, I have to have a bank account. If I
need a bank account, I will have to maintain a minimum balance of `500 in it, only then they open the bank account. Also
for a bank account to be opened, I would need identity documents (ID proofs). To get these documents, I will have to pay
bribes everywhere.”30 And, even if they fulfil these eligibility
criteria, women do not get the money on time. Sometimes it
even takes eight–nine months after delivery to reach them
because the district itself receives funds very late to transfer
money to the beneficiaries: “We have not received maternity
benefit. They said that it would take two–three months
because there are no funds available now.”31
Further, women state that the scheme does not even cover
the costs of delivery, and certainly not antenatal and postnatal
care costs. They describe point-by-point the different expenses
that an institutional delivery entails. From transportation to
birth certificate, to multiple bribes, food and medicines, they
have to pay, each and everything and each and every person to
deliver at a public facility. In all, they will spend between
`1,500 and `2,000 to deliver at the PHC: “There is no fixed
amount, sometimes for delivery in total one would spend
`1,000 and sometimes it is `2,000. But the minimum is `1,000
to `1,200. The amount that we get under maternity scheme is
not of much use.”32 “We spend more than the `1,400 of the
maternity benefit scheme on informal payments made to
nurse, transport and medicine.”33
56
According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-4
data, the average out-of-pocket expenditure per delivery in a
public health facility is `1,724. Few studies that have evaluated
the scheme show that the JSY is troublesome, and generates
new inequalities between districts and even among women
from the same district (Centre for Equity Studies 2015). But,
still, as the latest figures released by NFHS-4 show, the scheme
has had an impact, with institutional deliveries in public
facilities having risen to 47.7 % in Bihar from NFHS-3 (2005–06),
when it was a meagre 3.5%.
However, this scheme, compared to universal coverage or
free access to healthcare for pregnant women, deals with
healthcare accessibility in a very narrow and partial way. It
does not take into account the multiple costs implied by antenatal and postnatal follow-ups. According to NFHS-4, less than
4% of women in Bihar had a full antenatal check-up as recommended by the WHO; around 58% of mothers never had any
postnatal contact in the 48 hours after delivery as recommended
by the WHO (MoHFW 2015–16).
Though the recent implementation of the JSY increased institutional delivery, it will not solve on its own the issue of
maternal mortality on the long run since it does not take into
account the full process of maternity follow-ups from antenatal to postnatal care. In the long run, the quality of healthcare
provided at PHCs and the experience of women there is still
going to be an issue, if it does not improve:
The expense on delivery exceeds the amount we get under the maternity benefit scheme. It is just that people go to the PHC thinking that
there are facilities there, which are better than delivering at home.
But in fact, there is no benefit from delivering at hospital, and it is too
expensive.34
Conclusions
Using situated intersectionality and examining the nexus of
inequalities, we have offered a nuanced and complex analysis
of unequal situations at stake in mHealth. Through the study
of several particular intersections, from individuals to public
health policies, we highlighted the complex inclusion of a technical device in a situated context. Thus, we pointed out the inequalities sometimes reinforced and sometimes offset by the
technical artefact.
This paper shows how the implementation of a technology is
context-dependent, and implies different degrees of interactions and determinations. Envisioning that the reception of an
automated vocal message once a week can make up for such
varied and entangled inequalities enmeshed in Motech
seems nothing but wishful thinking. However, the Government of India is now investing in these new technologies to
improve health, and in 2017 the Ministry of Health and Family
Welfare extended Kilkari to Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan,
Jharkhand and Uttarakhand (Chamberlain 2014).
The modalities of implementation at a national level have to
be further studied, but the numerous difficulties encountered
on the field in Bihar should be taken into account to avoid the
failure of Kilkari and the potential increase in health inequalities through this mechanism.
MARCH 17, 2018
vol lIiI no 11
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Notes
1 Qualitative corpus analysis of four corpuses:
(i) Worldwide general press: Factiva (English
and French), “Mobile and Health,” 446 articles
(2011–13).
(ii) Techno and Health specialised press: Factiva, for the four most evoked regions in the general press (Africa, India, UK and US), 581 articles (2011–13).
(iii) Scientific press: PubMed, “Mobile and
Health,” 213 articles (January 2010–14).
(iv) International reports: 20 reports (United
Nations, European Union, World Bank, World
Health Organization, United Nations Development Programme, Internationla Telecommunication Union, UNICEF, Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, United States
Food and Drug Administration, Indian government, Institute for Healthcare Informatics)
published during 2010–14 on ICT4D (information and communication technologies for development) or on “mHealth,” 50 reports from
GSM Association on ICT4D and 20 reports from
mHealth Alliance.
2 This research was part of Marine Al Dahdah’s
PhD dissertation. Broader results of this doctoral research have been recently published
in Gender, Technology and Development (Al
Dahdah 2017).
3 Interview with K, employee at BBC Media
Action, Delhi, 2015.
4 Focus group discussion (FGD) with woman n°2,
District A, 2015.
5 FGD with woman n°3, District A, 2015.
6 FGD with woman n°1, District A, 2015.
7 FGD with woman n°1, District A, 2015.
8 FGD with community health worker n°2, District A, 2015.
9 FGD with woman n°1, District A, 2015.
10 FGD with woman n°9, District B, 2015.
11 FGD with woman n°3, District A, 2015.
12 FGD with woman n°7, District B, 2015.
13 FGD with woman n°9, District B, 2015.
14 FGD with woman n°13, District B, 2015.
15 FGD with woman n°12, District B, 2015.
16 FGD with woman n°3, District A, 2015.
17 World Bank Data, India, viewed on 14 September 2015, http://data.worldbank.org/country/
india.
18 FGD with woman n°12, District B, 2015.
19 FGD with woman n°7, District B, 2015.
20 FGD with woman n°1, District A, 2015.
21 FGD with woman n°3, District A, 2015.
22 FGD with woman n°11, District B, 2015.
23 FGD with woman n°12, District B, 2015.
24 FGD with woman n°11, District B, 2015.
25 FGD with community health worker n°2, District
A, 2015.
26 FGD with community health worker n°2, District
A, 2015.
27 FGD with woman n°10, District B, 2015.
28 FGD with woman n°7, District B, 2015.
29 FGD with woman n°10, District B, 2015.
30 FGD with woman n°8, District B, 2015.
31 FGD with woman n°9, District B, 2015.
32 FGD with woman n°12, District B, 2015.
33 FGD with woman n°3, District A, 2015.
34 FGD with woman n°10, District B, 2015.
References
Adams, Samantha and Marc Berg (2004): “The
Nature of the Net: Constructing Reliability of
Health Information on the Web,” Information
Technology & People, Vol 17, No 2, pp 150–70.
Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
MARCH 17, 2018
Alepis, Efthimios and Christos Lambrinidis (2013):
“M-Health: Supporting Automated Diagnosis
and Electonic Health Records,” SpringerPlus,
Vol 2, No 1, p 103.
Al Dahdah, Marine (2017): “Health at Her Fingertips: Development, Gender and Empowering
Mobile Technologies,” Gender, Technology and
Development, Vol 21, Nos 1–2, pp 135–51, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/
09718524.2017.1385701.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2002): La Domination Masculine,
Édition Augmentée d’une Préface, Collection
Points Essais, Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Callaway, David W, Christopher R Peabody, Ari
Hoffman, Elizabeth Cote, Seth Moulton, Amado Alejandro Baez and Larry Nathanson
(2012): “Disaster Mobile Health Technology:
Lessons from Haiti,” Prehospital and Disaster
Medicine, Vol 27, No 2, pp 148–52.
Centre for Equity Studies (2015): “Broken Lives and
Compromise: Report on Maternity Entitlement
in India,” http://centreforequitystudies.org/.
Chamberlain, Sara (2014): “Scaling BBC Media Action
mHealth Services pan-India,” BBC Media Action
(blog), 7 November, viewed on 21 April 2016,
http://www.rethink1000days.org/2014/11/scaling-bbc-media-action-mhealth-services-panindia-2/.
Crenshaw, Kimberle (1989): “Demarginalizing the
Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist
Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University
of Chicago Legal Forum, Vol 140, pp 139–67.
d’Oliveira, Ana Flávia Pires Lucas, Simone Grilo Diniz and Lilia Blima Schraiber (2002): “Violence
against Women in Healthcare Institutions: An
Emerging Problem,” Lancet, Vol 359, No 9, 318,
pp 1, 681–85.
Ekwempu, C C, D Maine, M B Olorukoba, E S Essien and M N Kisseka (1990): “Structural Adjustment and Health in Africa,” Lancet, Vol 336,
No 8706, pp 56–57.
Flichy, Patrice (2003): L’innovation Technique: Récents Développements En Sciences Sociales, Vers
Une Nouvelle Théorie de L’innovation, Sciences
et Société, Paris: Éditions La Découverte.
Gates, Bill (2012): “The Optimist’s Timeline,” Livemint, 31 December, http://www.livemint.com/
Opinion/V50SZzLeXeMDyrSmleT34I/The-optimists-timeline.html.
GSMA (2013): “Women & Mobile: A Global Opportunity, A Study on the Mobile Phone Gender Gap
in Low and Middle-Income Countries,” https://
www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/GSMA_Women_and_
Mobile-A_Global_Opportunity.pdf.
Henwood, Flis and Sally Wyatt (2000): “Persistent
Inequalities? Gender and Technology in the
Year 2000,” Source: Feminist Review, No 64,
Spring, pp 128–31
Henwood, Flis, Sally Wyatt, Angie Hart and Julie
Smith (2003): “‘Ignorance Is Bliss Sometimes’:
Constraints on the Emergence of the ‘Informed
Patient’ in the Changing Landscapes of Health
Information,” Sociology of Health & Illness,
Vol 25, No 6, pp 589–607.
ITU (2013): “Statistics,” International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, viewed on 13 May
2014, http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/
Pages/stat/default.aspx.
Jaffrelot, Christophe (2002): “Inde: L’avènement
Politique de la Caste,” Critique Internationale,
Vol 17, No 4, p 131.
Joly, Pierre-Benoit, Arie Rip and Michel Callon
(2013): “Réinventer l’innovation?” October,
http://webcom.upmf-grenoble.fr/lodel/innovacs/index.php?id=108#tocto1n3.
vol lIiI no 11
Källander, Karin, J K Tibenderana, O J Akpogheneta, D L Strachan, Z Hill, A H ten Asbroek et al
(2013): “Mobile Health (mHealth) Approaches
and Lessons for Increased Performance and
Retention of Community Health Workers in
Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review,”
Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol 15,
No 1, e17.
Kuhlmann, Ellen and Ellen Annandale (eds)
(2010): The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and
Healthcare, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
MoHFW (2015–16): “ State Fact Sheet: Bihar,” National Family Health Survey—4, Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of
India, New Delhi, http://rchiips.org/NFHS/
pdf/NFHS4/BR_FactSheet.pdf.
Newman, Amie (2011): “Impatient Blogger’s News
of the Day,” blog post, Impatient Optimists, Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation, 3 October, https://www.impatientoptimists.org/Posts/2011/10/Impatient-Bloggers-News-of-the-Day.
Parpart, Jane L, Shirin Rai and Kathleen A Staudt
(eds) (2003): Rethinking Empowerment: Gender
and Development in a Global/Local World, London/New York: Routledge.
Pew Research Centre (2012): “Mobile Health 2012,”
November, http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/11/08/mobile-health-2012/.
Qiang, Christine Zhenwei, Masatake Yamamichi,
Vicky Hausman and Robin Miller (2012): Mobile
Applications for the Health Sector, Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Rajan, K S (2012): Lively Capital: Biotechnologies,
Ethics, and Governance in Global Markets, Durham: Duke University Press.
Sankaranarayanan, Jayashri and Rory E Sallach
(2014): “Rural Patients’ Access to Mobile Phones
and Willingness to Receive Mobile PhoneBased Pharmacy and Other Health Technology
Services: A Pilot Study,” Telemedicine Journal
and E-Health: The Official Journal of the
American Telemedicine Association, Vol 20, No 2,
pp 182–85.
Sen, Gita and Piroska Östlin (eds) (2010): Gender
Equity in Health: The Shifting Frontiers of Evidence and Action, Routledge Studies in Health
and Social Welfare 5, New York: Routledge.
Shewade, Hemant Deepak and Arun Kumar Aggarwal
(2012): “Health Sector Reforms: Concepts, Market Based Reforms and Health Inequity in India,”
Educational Research, Vol 3, No 2, pp 118–25.
Yuval-Davis, Nira (2015): “Situated Intersectionality
and Social Inequality,” Raisons Politiques,
Vol 58, No 2, pp 91–100.
UNDP (2012): “Mobile Technologies and Empowerment: Enhancing Human Development through
Participation and Innovation,” 19 February, United
Nations Development Programme, New York.
WHO (2011): “mHealth: New Horizons for Health
through Mobile Technologies,” World Health
Organization, Geneva.
World Bank (2012): Information and Communications for Development 2012: Maximizing Mobile,
World Bank, Washington DC.
available at
People Book Stall
15, Cawasji Patel Road
Fort, Mumbai 400 001
Ph: 22873768
57