Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37024808›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023

Virtual prenatal visits associated with high measures of patient experience and satisfaction among average-risk patients: a prospective cohort study.

Bethany Bruno, Mary Beth Mercer, Sabahat Hizlan, Julian Peskin, Paul J Ford, Ruth M Farrell, Susannah L Rose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Socioeconomic and Geographical Analysis on Antenatal Care Visits in Indonesia: A Cross-sectional Study.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Bethany BrunoDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. bethany.anne.bruno@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0445-6876
Mary Beth MercerOffice of Patient Experience, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7479-8762
Sabahat HizlanOffice of Patient Experience, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Julian PeskinCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Paul J FordCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Ruth M FarrellCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Susannah L RoseCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5895-7460

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual visits have the potential to decrease barriers to prenatal care stemming from transportation, work, and childcare concerns. However, data regarding patient experience and satisfaction with virtual visits remain limited in obstetrics. To address this gap, we explore average-risk pregnant women's experiences with virtual visits and compare satisfaction with virtual vs. in-person visits as a secondary aim.

methodsIn this IRB-approved, prospective cohort study, we surveyed pregnant women after their first virtual visit between October 7, 2019 and March 20, 2020. Using heterogeneous purposive sampling, we identified a subset of respondents with diverse experiences and opinions for interviews. For comparison, Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) satisfaction data were collected after in-person visits during the study timeframe from a control cohort with the same prenatal providers. Logistic regression controlling for age, previous pregnancies, and prior live births compared satisfaction data between virtual and in-person visits. Other quantitative survey data were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Free text survey responses and interview data were analyzed using content analysis.

resultsNinety five percent (n = 165/174) of surveys and 90% (n = 18/20) of interviews were completed. Most participants were Caucasian, married, and of middle to high income. 69% (114/165) agreed that their virtual appointment was as good as in-person; only 13% (21/165) disagreed. Almost all (148/165, 90%) would make another virtual appointment. Qualitative data highlighted ease of access, comparable provider-patient communication, confidence in care quality, and positive remote monitoring experiences. Recognizing these advantages but also inherent limitations, interviews emphasized interspersing telemedicine with in-person prenatal encounters. CAHPS responses after in-person visits were available for 60 patients. Logistic regression revealed no significant difference in three measures of satisfaction (p = 0.16, 0.09, 0.13) between virtual and in-person visits.

conclusionsIn an average-risk population, virtual prenatal visits provide a patient-centered alternative to traditional in-person encounters with high measures of patient experience and no significant difference in satisfaction. Obstetric providers should explore telemedicine to improve access - and, during the ongoing pandemic, to minimize exposures - using patients' experiences for guidance. More research is needed regarding virtual visits' medical quality, integration into prenatal schedules, and provision of equitable care for diverse populations.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityPatient SatisfactionPrenatal CareTelemedicineFemaleHumansPandemicsPatient Outcome AssessmentPregnancyPregnant PeopleProspective StudiesHealthcare accessObstetricsPatient experiencePrenatal careRemote monitoringSurvey researchTelehealthTelemedicineVideoconferencingVirtual visits

Identifiers

PMID37024808
PMCPMC10077310

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.