Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42196700›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026

Virtual Maternity Care During Pregnancy: A Metasynthesis of the Qualitative Literature on Women's Experiences.

Jennifer Fenwick, Olga Aleshin, Jennifer Green, Vanessa Scarf, Heike Roth, Kathleen Baird, Helen Barrett, Deborah Fox

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Jennifer FenwickCollective of Midwifery and Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3556-1193
Olga AleshinCollective of Midwifery and Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7133-5367
Jennifer GreenCollective of Midwifery and Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, Australia.ORCID 0009-0007-6010-5081
Vanessa ScarfCollective of Midwifery and Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3503-9610
Heike RothCollective of Midwifery and Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8752-4995
Kathleen BairdCollective of Midwifery and Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, Australia.
Helen BarrettThe Royal Hospital for Women, Randwick 2031, Australia.
Deborah FoxCollective of Midwifery and Child and Family Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo 2007, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8032-8633

Funding

University of Technology Sydney School of Nursing and Midwifery Research Seed Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The adoption of Virtual Maternity Care (VMC) in antenatal settings is increasing, propelled by technological advancements that facilitate remote communication and telemonitoring. A spectrum of care models exists globally, ranging from fully virtual to hybrid approaches. This review seeks to synthesise the qualitative evidence on women's experiences of antenatal VMC in high-income countries, developing a conceptually rich understanding of factors that facilitate or hinder engagement and perceived safety. In June 2025, four databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature published in English between January 2010 and June 2025. After screening for quality and eligibility, 21 articles were included. Four core themes were identified: Virtual Care Worked Well, Seeking Good Connections, Empowerment and Safety Through Virtual Care Monitoring, and Feeling Disconnected and Unsafe. Women described feeling empowered through active participation and shared responsibility in their care (Empowerment and Safety Through Virtual Care Monitoring), particularly when relational care and continuity were present (Seeking Good Connections). Flexibility, convenience, and access to daily telehealth and reliable technologies were highly valued (Virtual Care Worked Well). Hybrid models were generally preferred; in contrast, exclusively remote models sometimes inhibited quality care and heightened feelings of insecurity (Feeling Disconnected and Unsafe), particularly for women with previous pregnancy loss, experiences of intimate partner violence, mental health concerns, or those facing language barriers, digital poverty, financial hardship, or low health literacy. In conclusion, women's perspectives underscore priorities for designing and scaling high-quality, accessible virtual midwifery care: relational continuity, technological reliability, flexible delivery, and hybrid models integrating virtual and in-person care.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesPrenatal CareTelemedicineDigital HealthFemaleHumansPregnancyQualitative Researchantenatal carecontinuity of caredigital healthhealth equityqualitative metasynthesisremote monitoringtelehealthvirtual maternity carewomen’s experiences

Identifiers

PMID42196700
PMCPMC13207183

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.