Cited by 98Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Use of wearable sensors for pregnancy health and environmental monitoring: Descriptive findings from the perspective of patients and providers

Open access
Runkle, Jennifer, Sugg, Maggie, Boase, Danielle, Galvin, Shelley L., C. Coulson, Carol·2019·DIGITAL HEALTH

Abstract

Background: Wearable sensors and other smart technology may be especially beneficial in providing remote monitoring of sub-clinical changes in pregnancy health status. Yet, limited research has examined perceptions among pregnant patients and providers in incorporating smart technology into their daily routine and clinical practice. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of pregnant women and their providers at a rural health clinic on the use of wearable technology to monitor health and environmental exposures during pregnancy. Methods: An anonymous 21-item e-survey was administered to family medicine or obstetrics and gynecology ( n=28) providers at a rural health clinic; while a 21-item paper survey was administered to pregnant women ( n=103) attending the clinic for prenatal care. Results: Smartphone and digital technology use was high among patients and providers. Patients would consider wearing a mobile sensor during pregnancy, reported no privacy concerns, and felt comfortable sharing information from these devices with their physician. About seven out of 10 women expressed willingness to change their behavior during pregnancy in response to receiving personalized recommendations from a smartphone. While most providers did not currently use smart technologies in their medical practice, about half felt it will be used more often in the future to diagnose and remotely monitor patients. Patients ranked fetal heart rate and blood pressure as their top preference for health monitoring compared to physicians who ranked blood pressure and blood glucose. Patients and providers demonstrated similar preferences for environmental monitoring, but patients as a whole expressed more interests in tracking environmental measures compared to their providers. Conclusions: Patients and providers responded positively to the use of wearable sensor technology in prenatal care. More research is needed to understand what factors might motivate provider use and implementation of wearable technology to improve the delivery of prenatal care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2055207619828220

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of remote patient monitoring between clinic visits in detecting health deterioration earlier and enabling prompt intervention, particularly for individuals with chronic conditions.

    “Numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of remote patient monitoring between clinic visits in detecting health deterioration earlier and enabling prompt intervention, particularly for individuals with chronic conditions [44–50].”

    From Caregiver experiences of an integrative patient-centered digital health application for pediatric type 1 diabetes care: Findings from a pilot clinical trial (2025) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Introduction says wearable technologies have potential for earlier detection of pregnancy complications, and the Discussion says remote monitoring may permit timely identification of adverse pregnancy events. The Discussion also reports that providers perceived chronic-disease monitoring as a benefit. These passages do not establish that remote monitoring enables prompt intervention or that numerous studies have demonstrated those benefits for people with chronic conditions. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [19]American Medical Association (AMA) adopts principles to promote safe, effective mHealth applications, 16 November 2016 [press release], https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-adopts-principles-promote-safe-effective-mhealth-applications (2016, accessed 16 November 2018).
  2. [34]Butler Tobah YS LeBlanc A Branda M et al A novel approach to prenatal care. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127: 7S– 8S.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Runkle, J., Sugg, M., Boase, D., Galvin, S. L., & C. Coulson, C.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Department of Geography and Planning, Appalachian State University, USA
  • Appalachian State University (US)
  • Mountain Area Health Education Center (US)
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mountain Area Health Education Center, USA
Corresponding author
Runkle, Jennifer
Venue
DIGITAL HEALTH
Published
2019-01
Volume
5
Pages
2055207619828220-2055207619828220
ISSN
2055-2076 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914541952
Cited by
98
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3
FWCI
16.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
wearable sensors, pregnancy, prenatal care, remote patient monitoring, environmental exposure monitoring, patient perspectives, provider perceptions, smart technology adoption, privacy concerns, personalized health recommendations, rural health facilities, fetal heart rate, blood pressure, blood glucose

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review