ArticleDigital health
Clinician and patient perceptions around implementing remote blood pressure monitoring for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: A survey-based study.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Remote blood pressure monitoring (RBPM) is a promising method for surveilling hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). This refers to an organised framework in which clinicians can review and manage patient-obtained blood pressure recordings. Successful integration of RBPM into routine antenatal care necessitates understanding patient and clinician perspectives of its use. This study sought to evaluate the perceptions of high-risk pregnant women and clinicians regarding RBPM's use in HDP surveillance. Methods: A web-based questionnaire was distributed to pregnant women in South Western Sydney and clinicians across Australia and New Zealand. Quantitative Likert scales and qualitative open-ended questions were used to ascertain perceptions about RBPM for the surveillance of HDP. Results: Seventy-six women responded to the patient survey, with a response rate of 74.5%. A total of 65 clinicians responded to the healthcare professional survey. Almost all women (97.4%) supported RBPM's potential to aid healthcare decisions, with 96.1% willing to incorporate RBPM into antenatal care. Linear regression revealed implementation of RBPM was particularly supported by women who had less time off from paid employment during their pregnancy ( Conclusion: Though socioeconomic status, ethnicity and language influenced perceptions towards RBPM; overall, Australian pregnant women and clinicians are broadly receptive to its use in antenatal care. Successful implementation of RPBM requires careful evaluation of design and workflow to accommodate for patient diversity, ease of use, compliance, privacy and clinical utility to optimise the user experience.
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.