Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30617040›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2019

Women's Attitudes Toward Self-Monitoring of Their Pregnancy Using Noninvasive Electronic Devices: Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study.

Katharina Schramm, Niklas Grassl, Juliane Nees, Janine Hoffmann, Holger Stepan, Thomas Bruckner, Markus W Haun, Imad Maatouk, Markus Haist, Timm C Schott and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Katharina Schramm *Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Women's Clinic Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8670-4476
Niklas Grassl *Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Women's Clinic Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7987-0444
Juliane NeesDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Women's Clinic Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4886-9808
Janine HoffmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Women's Clinic Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5910-0477
Holger StepanDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Women's Clinic Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1264-7365
Thomas BrucknerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9342-3456
Markus W HaunDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1851-3747
Imad MaatoukDepartment of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8030-1182
Markus HaistFrauenarztpraxis Markus Haist & Anja Ritthaler, Pforzheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0854-266X
Timm C SchottCentre of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics and Orofacial Orthopedics, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1201-9222
Christof SohnDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Women's Clinic Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9430-4037
Sarah SchottDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Women's Clinic Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1714-1147
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPregnancy can be distressing, particularly if expectant mothers are worried about the well-being of their fetus. Consequently, the desire for reassurance and frequent fetal monitoring is often pronounced. Smart wearable devices and telemedicine are promising tools that could assist women in self-monitoring their pregnancy at home, hence disburdening emergency departments (EDs). They present the possibility to clarify the need for urgent care remotely and offer tighter pregnancy monitoring. However, patients' acceptance of such new technologies for fetal monitoring has not yet been explored extensively.

objectiveThis survey aimed to elucidate the attitudes of women toward self-monitoring of their pregnancy using noninvasive electronic devices. The technical details of the proposed devices were not specified.

methodsA cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted at the departments of obstetrics of the University Hospitals of Heidelberg and Leipzig, Germany. All patients seen in the obstetrics clinic who were above 18 years were offered participation. We designed a survey questionnaire including validated instruments covering population characteristics, issues in current and past pregnancies, as well as attitudes toward self-monitoring of pregnancy with smart devices.

resultsA total of 509 pregnant women with no previous experience in telemedicine participated. Only a small minority of 5.9% (29/493) regarded self-monitoring with wearable devices as an alternative to consulting their physicians. Along these lines, only 7.7% (38/496) strongly believed they would visit the ED less often if such devices were readily available. However, if the procedure were combined with a Web-based telemetric physician consult, 13.5% (66/487) would be highly motivated to use the devices. Furthermore, significantly more women regarded it as an alternative prior to seeing a doctor when they perceived a decline in fetal movements (P<.001). Interestingly, women with university degrees had a higher propensity to engage in pregnancy self-monitoring compared with women without one (37% vs 23%; P=.001). Of the participants, 77.9% (381/489) would like smart wearable devices to measure fetal heart sounds, and 62.6% (306/489) wished to use the devices on their own. Feedback from a doctor or midwife was also very important in their choice of such devices (61.8%, 301/487 wished feedback). The intended frequency of use differed vastly among women, ranging from 13.8% (65/471) who would like to use such a device several times per day to 31.6% (149/471) who favored once per week at most.

conclusionsOur results point to a skeptical attitude toward pregnancy self-monitoring among pregnant women. Nevertheless, many women are open to using devices for pregnancy monitoring in parallel to consulting their physician. The intention to use such devices several times daily or weekly, expressed by more than half of the participants, highlights the potential of such technologies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCell PhoneCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFetal MonitoringGermanyHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicPregnancyPregnant PeopleSelf-ManagementSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineeHealthfetal monitoringpregnancytelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID30617040
PMCPMC6329419
OpenAlexW2910099044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.