Information Resources Among Flemish Pregnant Women: Cross-sectional Study.

backgroundThere has been an exponential growth in the availability of apps, resulting in increased use of pregnancy apps. However, information on resources and use of apps among pregnant women is relatively limited.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to map the current information resources and the use of pregnancy apps among pregnant women in Flanders.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted, using a semistructured survey (April-June 2019) consisting of four different domains: (1) demographics; (2) use of devices; (3) sources of information; and (4) use of pregnancy apps. Women were recruited by social media, flyers, and paper questionnaires at prenatal consultations. Statistical analysis was mainly focused on descriptive statistics. Differences in continuous and categorical variables were tested using independent Student t tests and chi-square tests. Correlations were investigated between maternal characteristics and the women's responses.

resultsIn total, 311 women completed the entire questionnaire. Obstetricians were the primary source of information (268/311, 86.2%) for pregnant women, followed by websites/internet (267/311, 85.9%) and apps (233/311, 74.9%). The information that was most searched for was information about the development of the baby (275/311, 88.5%), discomfort/complaints (251/311, 80.7%) and health during pregnancy (248/311, 79.7%), administrative/practical issues (233/311, 74.9%), and breastfeeding (176/311, 56.6%). About half of the women (172/311, 55.3%) downloaded a pregnancy app, and primarily searched app stores (133/311, 43.0%). Pregnant women who are single asked their mothers (22/30, 73.3%) or other family members (13/30, 43.3%) for significantly more information than did married women (mother [in law]: 82/160, 51.3%, P=.02; family members: 35/160, 21.9%, P=.01). Pregnant women with lower education were significantly more likely to have a PC or laptop than those with higher education (72/73, 98.6% vs 203/237, 85.5%; P=.008), and to consult other family members for pregnancy information (30/73, 41.1% vs 55/237, 23.1%; P<.001), but were less likely to consult a gynecologist (70/73, 95.9% vs 198/237, 83.5%; P=.001). They also followed more prenatal sessions (59/73, 80.8% vs 77/237, 32.5%; P=.04) and were more likely to search for information regarding discomfort/complaints during pregnancy (65/73, 89% vs 188/237, 79.5%; P=.02). Compared to multigravida, primigravida were more likely to solicit advice about their pregnancy from other women in their social networks (family members: primigravida 44/109, 40.4% vs multigravida 40/199, 20.1%; P<.001; other pregnant women: primigravida 58/109, 53.2% vs multigravida 80/199, 40.2%; P<.03).

conclusionsHealth care professionals need to be aware that apps are important and are a growing source of information for pregnant women. Concerns rise about the quality and safety of those apps, as only a limited number of apps are subjected to an external quality check. Therefore, it is important that health care providers refer to high-quality digital resources and take the opportunity to discuss digital information with pregnant women.