Women's Attitudes Toward Self-Monitoring of Their Pregnancy Using Noninvasive Electronic Devices: Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study.
eHealth
fetal monitoring
pregnancy
telemedicine
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 01 2019
07 01 2019
Historique:
received:
01
07
2018
accepted:
27
09
2018
revised:
08
09
2018
entrez:
9
1
2019
pubmed:
9
1
2019
medline:
9
1
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pregnancy can be distressing, particularly if expectant mothers are worried about the well-being of their fetus. Consequently, the desire for reassurance and frequent fetal monitoring is often pronounced. Smart wearable devices and telemedicine are promising tools that could assist women in self-monitoring their pregnancy at home, hence disburdening emergency departments (EDs). They present the possibility to clarify the need for urgent care remotely and offer tighter pregnancy monitoring. However, patients' acceptance of such new technologies for fetal monitoring has not yet been explored extensively. This survey aimed to elucidate the attitudes of women toward self-monitoring of their pregnancy using noninvasive electronic devices. The technical details of the proposed devices were not specified. A cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted at the departments of obstetrics of the University Hospitals of Heidelberg and Leipzig, Germany. All patients seen in the obstetrics clinic who were above 18 years were offered participation. We designed a survey questionnaire including validated instruments covering population characteristics, issues in current and past pregnancies, as well as attitudes toward self-monitoring of pregnancy with smart devices. A total of 509 pregnant women with no previous experience in telemedicine participated. Only a small minority of 5.9% (29/493) regarded self-monitoring with wearable devices as an alternative to consulting their physicians. Along these lines, only 7.7% (38/496) strongly believed they would visit the ED less often if such devices were readily available. However, if the procedure were combined with a Web-based telemetric physician consult, 13.5% (66/487) would be highly motivated to use the devices. Furthermore, significantly more women regarded it as an alternative prior to seeing a doctor when they perceived a decline in fetal movements (P<.001). Interestingly, women with university degrees had a higher propensity to engage in pregnancy self-monitoring compared with women without one (37% vs 23%; P=.001). Of the participants, 77.9% (381/489) would like smart wearable devices to measure fetal heart sounds, and 62.6% (306/489) wished to use the devices on their own. Feedback from a doctor or midwife was also very important in their choice of such devices (61.8%, 301/487 wished feedback). The intended frequency of use differed vastly among women, ranging from 13.8% (65/471) who would like to use such a device several times per day to 31.6% (149/471) who favored once per week at most. Our results point to a skeptical attitude toward pregnancy self-monitoring among pregnant women. Nevertheless, many women are open to using devices for pregnancy monitoring in parallel to consulting their physician. The intention to use such devices several times daily or weekly, expressed by more than half of the participants, highlights the potential of such technologies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Pregnancy can be distressing, particularly if expectant mothers are worried about the well-being of their fetus. Consequently, the desire for reassurance and frequent fetal monitoring is often pronounced. Smart wearable devices and telemedicine are promising tools that could assist women in self-monitoring their pregnancy at home, hence disburdening emergency departments (EDs). They present the possibility to clarify the need for urgent care remotely and offer tighter pregnancy monitoring. However, patients' acceptance of such new technologies for fetal monitoring has not yet been explored extensively.
OBJECTIVE
This survey aimed to elucidate the attitudes of women toward self-monitoring of their pregnancy using noninvasive electronic devices. The technical details of the proposed devices were not specified.
METHODS
A cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted at the departments of obstetrics of the University Hospitals of Heidelberg and Leipzig, Germany. All patients seen in the obstetrics clinic who were above 18 years were offered participation. We designed a survey questionnaire including validated instruments covering population characteristics, issues in current and past pregnancies, as well as attitudes toward self-monitoring of pregnancy with smart devices.
RESULTS
A total of 509 pregnant women with no previous experience in telemedicine participated. Only a small minority of 5.9% (29/493) regarded self-monitoring with wearable devices as an alternative to consulting their physicians. Along these lines, only 7.7% (38/496) strongly believed they would visit the ED less often if such devices were readily available. However, if the procedure were combined with a Web-based telemetric physician consult, 13.5% (66/487) would be highly motivated to use the devices. Furthermore, significantly more women regarded it as an alternative prior to seeing a doctor when they perceived a decline in fetal movements (P<.001). Interestingly, women with university degrees had a higher propensity to engage in pregnancy self-monitoring compared with women without one (37% vs 23%; P=.001). Of the participants, 77.9% (381/489) would like smart wearable devices to measure fetal heart sounds, and 62.6% (306/489) wished to use the devices on their own. Feedback from a doctor or midwife was also very important in their choice of such devices (61.8%, 301/487 wished feedback). The intended frequency of use differed vastly among women, ranging from 13.8% (65/471) who would like to use such a device several times per day to 31.6% (149/471) who favored once per week at most.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results point to a skeptical attitude toward pregnancy self-monitoring among pregnant women. Nevertheless, many women are open to using devices for pregnancy monitoring in parallel to consulting their physician. The intention to use such devices several times daily or weekly, expressed by more than half of the participants, highlights the potential of such technologies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30617040
pii: v7i1e11458
doi: 10.2196/11458
pmc: PMC6329419
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e11458Informations de copyright
©Katharina Schramm, Niklas Grassl, Juliane Nees, Janine Hoffmann, Holger Stepan, Thomas Bruckner, Markus W Haun, Imad Maatouk, Markus Haist, Timm C Schott, Christof Sohn, Sarah Schott. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 07.01.2019.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):104-106
pubmed: 29320653
Int J Med Inform. 2008 Jul;77(7):470-6
pubmed: 17923433
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Sep 28;14(5):e132
pubmed: 23022989
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 19;377(16):1585-1592
pubmed: 29045204
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Nov;107:11-17
pubmed: 29029687
Ultraschall Med. 2012 Jun;33(3):215-7
pubmed: 22700164
BJOG. 2016 Dec;123(13):2208-2217
pubmed: 26888657
Health Care Women Int. 2013;34(6):522-36
pubmed: 23514572
Am J Manag Care. 2013 Jan;19(1):47-59
pubmed: 23379744
J Ultrasound Med. 2005 Dec;24(12):1665-70
pubmed: 16301723
Int J Med Inform. 2015 Apr;84(4):288-97
pubmed: 25655783
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;216(2):181.e1-181.e7
pubmed: 27773714
Surgery. 2017 Sep;162(3):605-611
pubmed: 28651777
J Med Internet Res. 2017 May 26;19(5):e177
pubmed: 28550006
Telemed J E Health. 2014 Dec;20(12):1121-6
pubmed: 25290233
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Jun 05;5(6):e77
pubmed: 28583905
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015 Nov 04;3(4):e101
pubmed: 26537656
Interact J Med Res. 2014 Feb 19;3(1):e6
pubmed: 24554392
Trends Biotechnol. 2015 Nov;33(11):692-705
pubmed: 26463722
N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 23;377(21):2010-2011
pubmed: 29116869
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2014 Jan 21;2(1):e2
pubmed: 25098314
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD002098
pubmed: 10796678
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jan 20;19(1):e26
pubmed: 28108429
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Apr;295(4):811-816
pubmed: 28180962
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Aug 08;6(8):e10063
pubmed: 30089606
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Sep 27;19(9):e327
pubmed: 28954715
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 May 26;5(5):e73
pubmed: 28550005
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Mar 01;5(3):e4
pubmed: 28249834