Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33537637›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of midwifery2020

Midwives' views towards women using mHealth and eHealth to self-monitor their pregnancy: A systematic review of the literature.

Michelle Vickery, Edwin van Teijlingen, Vanora Hundley, Gary B Smith, Susan Way, Greta Westwood

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of midwifery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.9field-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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Pregnancy Apps for Self-Monitoring: Scoping Review of the Most Popular Global Apps Available in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle VickeryDepartment of Midwifery & Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
Edwin van TeijlingenDepartment of Midwifery & Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
Vanora HundleyDepartment of Midwifery & Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
Gary B SmithDepartment of Midwifery & Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
Susan WayDepartment of Midwifery & Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, United Kingdom.
Greta WestwoodFlorence Nightingale Foundation, London, United Kingdom.
Bournemouth University · GBFlorence Nightingale Foundation · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere are many mobile telephone apps to help women self-monitor aspects of pregnancy and maternal health. This literature review aims to understand midwives' perspectives on women self-monitoring their pregnancy using eHealth and mHealth, and establish gaps in research.

methodsMEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO were systematically searched on midwifery, eHealth/mHealth and perspectives. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies published in English were considered for inclusion in the review, without geographical limitations. Relevant articles were critically appraised and narrative synthesis was conducted.

resultsTwelve relevant papers covering midwives' perspectives of the use of eHealth and mHealth by pregnant women were obtained for inclusion in this review. Seven of these publications focused on midwives' views of eHealth, and five on their perspectives of mHealth interventions. The studies included demonstrate that midwives generally hold ambivalent views towards the use of eHealth and mHealth technologies in antenatal care. Often, midwives acknowledged the potential benefits of such technologies, such as their ability to modernise antenatal care and to help women make more informed decisions about their pregnancy. However, midwives were quick to point out the risks and limitations of these, such as the accuracy of conveyed information, and negative impacts on the patient-professional relationship.

conclusionsPost-COVID-19, where technology is continuously developing, there is a compelling need for studies that investigate the role of eHealth and mHealth in self-monitoring pregnancy, and the consequences this has for pregnant women, health professionals and organisations, as well as midwifery curricula.

Indexed as

appseHealthmHealthmidwivesperceptionswomen

Identifiers

PMID33537637
PMCPMC7839093
OpenAlexW3092169533

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.