Challenges in Acceptance and Compliance in Digital Health Assessments During Pregnancy: Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pregnant women are increasingly using mobile apps to access health information during the antenatal period. Therefore, digital health solutions can potentially be used as monitoring instruments during pregnancy. However, a main factor of success is high user engagement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze engagement and factors influencing compliance in a longitudinal study targeting pregnant women using a digital health app with self-tracking. METHODS: Digitally collected data concerning demographics, medical history, technical aspects, and mental health from 585 pregnant women were analyzed. Patients filling out ≥80% of items at every study visit were considered to be highly compliant. Factors associated with high compliance were identified using logistic regression. The effect of a change in mental and physical well-being on compliance was assessed using a one-sample t test. RESULTS: Only 25% of patients could be considered compliant. Overall, 63% left at least one visit blank. Influential variables for higher engagement included higher education, higher income, private health insurance, nonsmoking, and German origin. There was no relationship between a change in the number of physical complaints or depressive symptoms and study dropout. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining high engagement with digital monitoring devices over a long time remains challenging. As cultural and socioeconomic background factors had the strongest influence, more effort needs to be directed toward understanding the needs of patients from different demographic backgrounds to ensure high-quality care for all patients. More studies need to report on compliance to disclose potential demographic bias.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".