Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34860665›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2021

Users' Perceptions Toward mHealth Technologies for Health and Well-being Monitoring in Pregnancy Care: Qualitative Interview Study.

Jane Li, David Silvera-Tawil, Marlien Varnfield, M Sazzad Hussain, Vanitha Math

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jane Li *Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Marsfield, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2936-2318
David Silvera-Tawil *Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Marsfield, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2653-0141
Marlien Varnfield *Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Herston, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4848-0181
M Sazzad Hussain *Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Marsfield, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9000-8775
Vanitha Math *Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Gold Coast University Hospital, Gold Coast, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5878-9177
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · AUGold Coast Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobile health (mHealth) technologies, such as wearable sensors, smart health devices, and mobile apps, that are capable of supporting pregnancy care are emerging. Although mHealth could be used to facilitate the tracking of health changes during pregnancy, challenges remain in data collection compliance and technology engagement among pregnant women. Understanding the interests, preferences, and requirements of pregnant women and those of clinicians is needed when designing and introducing mHealth solutions for supporting pregnant women's monitoring of health and risk factors throughout their pregnancy journey.

objectiveThis study aims to understand clinicians' and pregnant women's perceptions on the potential use of mHealth, including factors that may influence their engagement with mHealth technologies and the implications for technology design and implementation.

methodsA qualitative study using semistructured interviews was conducted with 4 pregnant women, 4 postnatal women, and 13 clinicians working in perinatal care.

resultsClinicians perceived the potential benefit of mHealth in supporting different levels of health and well-being monitoring, risk assessment, and care provision in pregnancy care. Most pregnant and postnatal female participants were open to the use of wearables and health monitoring devices and were more likely to use these technologies if they knew that clinicians were monitoring their data. Although it was acknowledged that some pregnancy-related medical conditions are suitable for an mHealth model of remote monitoring, the clinical and technical challenges in the introduction of mHealth for pregnancy care were also identified. Incorporating appropriate health and well-being measures, intelligently detecting any abnormalities, and providing tailored information for pregnant women were the critical aspects, whereas usability and data privacy were among the main concerns of the participants. Moreover, this study highlighted the challenges of engaging pregnant women in longitudinal mHealth monitoring, the additional work required for clinicians to monitor the data, and the need for an evidence-based technical solution.

conclusionsClinical, technical, and practical factors associated with the use of mHealth to monitor health and well-being in pregnant women need to be considered during the design and feasibility evaluation stages. Technical solutions and appropriate strategies for motivating pregnant women are critical to supporting their long-term data collection compliance and engagement with mHealth technology during pregnancy.

Indexed as

acceptancedesignmHealth servicemobile healthmobile phonepregnancy carewearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID34860665
PMCPMC8686472
OpenAlexW3205942183

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.