Users’ Perceptions Toward mHealth Technologies for Health and Well-being Monitoring in Pregnancy Care: Qualitative Interview Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) technologies, such as wearable sensors, smart health devices, and mobile apps, that are capable of supporting pregnancy care are emerging. Although mHealth could be used to facilitate the tracking of health changes during pregnancy, challenges remain in data collection compliance and technology engagement among pregnant women. Understanding the interests, preferences, and requirements of pregnant women and those of clinicians is needed when designing and introducing mHealth solutions for supporting pregnant women's monitoring of health and risk factors throughout their pregnancy journey. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand clinicians' and pregnant women's perceptions on the potential use of mHealth, including factors that may influence their engagement with mHealth technologies and the implications for technology design and implementation. METHODS: A qualitative study using semistructured interviews was conducted with 4 pregnant women, 4 postnatal women, and 13 clinicians working in perinatal care. RESULTS: Clinicians perceived the potential benefit of mHealth in supporting different levels of health and well-being monitoring, risk assessment, and care provision in pregnancy care. Most pregnant and postnatal female participants were open to the use of wearables and health monitoring devices and were more likely to use these technologies if they knew that clinicians were monitoring their data. Although it was acknowledged that some pregnancy-related medical conditions are suitable for an mHealth model of remote monitoring, the clinical and technical challenges in the introduction of mHealth for pregnancy care were also identified. Incorporating appropriate health and well-being measures, intelligently detecting any abnormalities, and providing tailored information for pregnant women were the critical aspects, whereas usability and data privacy were among the main concerns of the participants. Moreover, this study highlighted the challenges of engaging pregnant women in longitudinal mHealth monitoring, the additional work required for clinicians to monitor the data, and the need for an evidence-based technical solution. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical, technical, and practical factors associated with the use of mHealth to monitor health and well-being in pregnant women need to be considered during the design and feasibility evaluation stages. Technical solutions and appropriate strategies for motivating pregnant women are critical to supporting their long-term data collection compliance and engagement with mHealth technology during pregnancy.
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".