Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32749225›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

User Experiences With and Recommendations for Mobile Health Technology for Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Mixed Methods Study.

Karin Rolanda Jongsma, Josephus F M van den Heuvel, Jasmijn Rake, Annelien L Bredenoord, Mireille N Bekker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karin Rolanda Jongsma *Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8135-6786
Josephus F M van den Heuvel *Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1285-1019
Jasmijn RakeObstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7321-1608
Annelien L BredenoordDepartment of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7542-8963
Mireille N BekkerObstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7372-4291
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are a primary cause of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes worldwide. For women at risk of hypertensive complications, guidelines recommend frequent surveillance of blood pressure and signs of preeclampsia. Clinic visits range from every 2 weeks to several times a week. Given the wide ubiquity of smartphones and computers in most countries and a growing attention for self-management, digital technologies, including mobile health (mHealth), constitute a promising component of monitoring (self-measured) blood pressure during pregnancy. Currently, little is known about the experiences of women using such platforms and how mHealth can be aligned with their needs and preferences.

objectiveThe objectives were twofold: (1) to explore the experiences of Dutch women who had an increased risk of HDP with a blended care approach (mHealth combined with face-to-face care) for remote self-monitoring of blood pressure and preeclampsia symptoms and (2) to formulate recommendations for the use and integration of mHealth in clinical care.

methodsAlongside a prospective blended care study (SAFE@home study) that monitors pregnant women at increased risk of HPD with mHealth technology, a mixed methods study was conducted, including questionnaires (n=52) and interviews (n=11). Results were analyzed thematically.

resultsOf the 4 themes, 2 themes were related to the technologies themselves (expectations, usability), and 2 themes were related to the interaction and use of mHealth (autonomy and responsibilities of patients, responsibilities of health care professionals). First, the digital platform met the expectations of patients, which contributed to user satisfaction. Second, the platform was considered user-friendly, and patients favored different moments and frequencies for measuring their blood pressure. Third, patient autonomy was mentioned in terms of increased insight about their own condition and being able to influence clinical decision making. Fourth, clinical expertise of health care professionals was considered essential to interpret the data, which translates to subsequent responsibilities for clinical management. Data from the questionnaires and interviews corresponded.

conclusionsBlended care using an mHealth tool to monitor blood pressure in pregnancy was positively evaluated by its users. Insights from participants led to 7 recommendations for designing and implementing similar interventions and to enhance future, morally sound use of digital technologies in clinical care.

Indexed as

Hypertension, Pregnancy-InducedTelemedicineAdultBiomedical TechnologyBlood PressureFemaleHumansPregnancyProspective Studiesdigital healthethicshigh-risk pregnancyhypertensionmobile healthpreeclampsiatelemonitoring

Identifiers

PMID32749225
PMCPMC7435610
OpenAlexW3047535556

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.