ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Analysis of online antenatal education class use via a mobile terminal app during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social Media-Based Cancer Education: Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- The importance of online childbirth preparation courses.European journal of midwifery · 2024Article
- Mobile Prenatal Education and Its Impact on Reducing Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: Retrospective Real-World Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- Enhancing antenatal education in Pakistan: an audit and recommendations.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- "We are not there yet": perceptions, beliefs and experiences of healthcare professionals caring for women with pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain in Australia.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Association of Maternal Antenatal Education with Quality of Life after Childbirth in the Slovenian Population before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Predictors of Adherence to an Online Prenatal Education Course for Pregnant Women: A Retrospective Cohort Study.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo understand the use of online antenatal education classes accessed via the Mother and Child Health Handbook app during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to provide a basis and suggestions for optimizing Internet education during pregnancy under public health emergencies.
methodsWe compared and analyzed the use of online antenatal education classes via the Mother and Child Health Handbook app in Hangzhou in 2019 and 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic).
resultsBetween January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020, a total of 229,794 pregnant women created files and registered for the app, including 124,273 women in 2019 and 105,521 women in 2020. More pregnant women participated in online antenatal education learning (n = 36,379/34.5% vs. 29,226/23.5%, p = 0.000) in 2020 than in 2019. The proportion of pregnant women in the 18-34-year-old group who participated in online learning was higher than that in the advanced age group, and the difference was statistically significant (2019: 24.3% vs. 18.8%, p = 0.000) (2020: 35.7% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.000). More pregnant women accessed online antenatal education during early pregnancy (n = 13,463/37.0% vs. 9088/31.1%, p = 0.000) in 2020 than in 2019. Similar percentages of pregnant women participated in online antenatal education during mid-pregnancy (n = 15,426/52.8% vs. 19,269/53.0%, p = 0.639) in 2019 and 2020. Fewer pregnant women accessed online antenatal education during late pregnancy (n = 10,246/28.2% vs. 9476/32.4%, p = 0.000) in 2020 than in 2019. Fewer pregnant women choose to take 'Puerperal Health' courses in 2020 than in 2019 (early pregnancy: 36.20% vs. 42.79%, p = 0.000; mid-pregnancy: 41.65% vs. 48.19%, p = 0.000; late pregnancy: 55.31% vs. 58.41%, p = 0.000). Fewer pregnant women choose to take 'Psychological Adjustment' courses in 2020 than in 2019 (early pregnancy: 21.59% vs. 29.60%, p = 0.000; mid-pregnancy: 26.20% vs. 40.50%, p = 0.000; late pregnancy: 12.79% vs. 42.53%, p = 0.000). More pregnant women choose to study 'Nutrition and Exercise' in 2020 than in 2019 (early pregnancy: 44.48% vs. 25.95%, p = 0.000; mid-pregnancy: 47.77% vs. 40.75%, p = 0.000; late pregnancy: 55.94% vs. 42.99%, p = 0.000). "Pregnancy Care and Fetal Development" was the most selected course by pregnant women in early pregnancy (2019: 67.50%; 2020: 71.39%) and middle pregnancy (2019: 67.01%; 2020: 82.05%), and the proportion in 2020 was higher than it was in 2019. "Baby care" was the most selected course by pregnant women in late pregnancy, and the proportion in 2020 was higher than it was in 2019 (78.31% vs. 72.85%).
conclusionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, online antenatal education was well-used by pregnant women. More women participated in the online antenatal education modules during the COVID-19 pandemic than during 2019.The proportion of choosing different courses for pregnant women before and after the COVID-19 epidemic varied, and the learning course needs of pregnant women in different trimesters were different.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.