Home-based telemonitoring versus hospital admission in high risk pregnancies: a qualitative study on women's experiences

J F M van den Heuvel, C J Teunis, A Franx, N M T H Crombag, M N Bekker, J F M van den Heuvel, C J Teunis, A Franx, N M T H Crombag, M N Bekker

Abstract

Background: Hospital admission during pregnancy complications is considered to be an event of significant impact. Besides conventional in-clinic maternal and fetal monitoring, recent technologies enable home-based telemonitoring with self-measurements in high risk pregnancy. This study is part of a feasibility pilot to explore the usability and acceptability of telemonitoring and aims to gain insight in the experiences and preferences of high risk pregnant women concerning the novel strategy of telemonitoring, opposed to women who were hospitalized in pregnancy.

Methods: Using secured Facebook Groups, we conducted four online focus groups: two focus groups with women who were admitted during pregnancy (n = 11) and two with women who received home telemonitoring in the pilot phase (n = 11). The qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

Results: Four major themes emerged from both participant groups: [1] care experience, [2] emotions regarding pregnancy, [3] privacy and [4] impact on daily life. Different views were reported on all four themes, resulting in a direct comparison of experiences during hospitalization and telemonitoring. Most admitted patients reported a growing sense of boredom and anxiety during their clinical admission. Lack of privacy on ward was a great concern, as it affected their contact with hospital staff and family. This issue was not reported amongst telemonitored women. These participants still felt like a patient at times but responded that the comfort of their own home and bed was pleasant. Only a minority of telemonitored participants reported being anxious at times at home, while not having a physician or nurse nearby. Being at home resulted in less travel time for partners or family for hospital visits, which had its positive effects on family life.

Conclusions: Telemonitoring of a high-risk pregnancy provides an innovative manner to monitor fetal and maternal condition from home. Compared to the experiences of hospital admission in high risk pregnancy, it allows women to be in a comforting and private environment during an anxious time in their lives. As future studies should further investigate the safety and cost effectiveness of this novel strategy, women's views on the preference of telemonitoring need to be taken into consideration.

Keywords: Fetal monitoring; High risk pregnancy; Patient centered care; Perinatal care; Pregnancy complications; Telemedicine.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The four main themes and its subcategories resulting from the focus groups

References

    1. Cauldwell M, Dos Santos F, Steer PJ, et al. Pregnancy in women with congenital heart disease. BMJ. 2018;360:k478. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k478.
    1. Piccoli GB, Cabiddu G, Attini R, et al. Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(8):2011–2022. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2014050459.
    1. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK, et al. Births: provisional data for 2016. In: Vital statistics rapid release, no 2. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics. p. 2017.
    1. Queenan JT. Management of High-Risk Pregnancy: John Wiley and sons ltd; 2012.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Guideline CG107 Hypertension in pregnancy: diagnosis and management. 2010 (updated in 2011). Accessed 15 Nov 2018.
    1. RCOG . Green-top Guideline No.31 - The Investigation and Management of the Small–for–Gestational–Age Fetus. 2014.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Guideline NG25 preterm labour and birth. 2015. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.
    1. Leichtentritt RD, Blumenthal N, Elyassi A, et al. High-risk pregnancy and hospitalization: the women's voices. Health Soc Work. 2005;30(1):39–47. doi: 10.1093/hsw/30.1.39.
    1. Mercer RT, Ferketich SL. Stress and social support as predictors of anxiety and depression during pregnancy. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1988;10(2):26–39. doi: 10.1097/00012272-198801000-00008.
    1. Rubarth LB, Schoening AM, Cosimano A, et al. Women's experience of hospitalized bed rest during high-risk pregnancy. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2012;41(3):398–407. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2012.01349.x.
    1. Lederman RP, Boyd E, Pitts K, et al. Maternal development experiences of women hospitalized to prevent preterm birth. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2013;4(4):133–138. doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2013.10.004.
    1. Kent RA, Yazbek M, Heyns T, et al. The support needs of high-risk antenatal patients in prolonged hospitalisation. Midwifery. 2015;31(1):164–169. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2014.08.003.
    1. Eysenbach G. What is e-health? J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):e20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3.2.e20.
    1. van den Heuvel JF, Groenhof TK, Veerbeek JH, et al. eHealth as the next-generation perinatal care: an overview of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(6):e202. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9262.
    1. Schramm K, Lapert F, Nees J, et al. Acceptance of a new non-invasive fetal monitoring system and attitude for telemedicine approaches in obstetrics: a case-control study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(6):1085–1093. doi: 10.1007/s00404-018-4918-y.
    1. Boatin AA, Wylie B, Goldfarb I, et al. Wireless fetal heart rate monitoring in inpatient full-term pregnant women: testing functionality and acceptability. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):e0117043. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117043.
    1. Chung Y, de Greeff A, Shennan A. Validation and compliance of a home monitoring device in pregnancy: microlife WatchBP home. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2009;28(3):348–359. doi: 10.1080/10641950802601286.
    1. Tuttas CA. Lessons learned using web conference technology for online focus group interviews. Qual Health Res. 2015;25(1):122–133. doi: 10.1177/1049732314549602.
    1. Thrul J, Belohlavek A, Hambrick D, et al. Conducting online focus groups on Facebook to inform health behavior change interventions: two case studies and lessons learned. Internet Interv. 2017;9:106–111. doi: 10.1016/j.invent.2017.07.005.
    1. Byatt N, Hicks-Courant K, Davidson A, et al. Depression and anxiety among high-risk obstetric inpatients. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2014;36(6):644–649. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.07.011.
    1. Kerner RYY, Belkin A, Ben-Haroush A, Zeevi B, Hod M. Maternal self-administered fetal heart rate monitoring and transmission from home in high-risk pregnancies. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2004;84(1):33–39. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00331-X.
    1. Rauf Z, O'Brien E, Stampalija T, et al. Home labour induction with retrievable prostaglandin pessary and continuous telemetric trans-abdominal fetal ECG monitoring. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e28129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028129.
    1. O'Brien E, Rauf Z, Alfirevic Z, et al. Women's experiences of outpatient induction of labour with remote continuous monitoring. Midwifery. 2013;29(4):325–331. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.01.014.
    1. Lanssens. et al Midwives’, Obstetricians’, and Recently Delivered Mothers’ Perceptions of Remote Monitoring for Prenatal Care: Retrospective Survey. JMIR. 2019;21(4):e10887.
    1. Overdijkink SB, Velu AV, Rosman AN, et al. The usability and effectiveness of Mobile health technology-based lifestyle and medical intervention apps supporting health care during pregnancy: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(4):e109. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.8834.
    1. Rasekaba TM, Furler J, Blackberry I, et al. Telemedicine interventions for gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2015;110(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2015.07.007.
    1. Dorsey ER, Topol EJ. State of Telehealth. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(2):154–161. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1601705.
    1. Kruse CS, Krowski N, Rodriguez B, et al. Telehealth and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and narrative analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(8):e016242. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016242.
    1. Iribarren SJ, Cato K, Falzon L, et al. What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0170581. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170581.
    1. Lucivero F, Jongsma KR. A mobile revolution for healthcare? Setting the agenda for bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(10):685–689. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104741.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅