Survey demonstrates varied acceptability of fetal monitoring devices among women, highlighting potential for improved maternal healthcare access.
BACKGROUND Those who are pregnant and living in rural areas can face reduced access to quality maternal and perinatal healthcare; this contributes to disparities in care and increased adverse birth outcomes for mothers and babies. Using remote monitoring may mitigate this. This project analyzed data from a survey that examined acceptability and collected input for the design process of a wearable fetal echocardiogram (fECG). The development of this device will permit the transmission of fetal heart rate and relevant physiological information to their prenatal care provider. This potentially increases healthcare access, facilitating conditions for improved maternal and perinatal outcomes. OBJECTIVE A survey was developed to act as a guide for fetal monitoring device development. The survey assessed the acceptability levels of a fetal monitoring device among women of reproductive age. METHODS The survey was administered using the Qualtrics ™ online survey platform. The survey was distributed using snowball recruitment through community and online postering. Compensation was offered to survey respondents. Data was analyzed using SPSS v29. RESULTS 163 participants completed the survey, with 103 responses to acceptability questions; older women aged 30-49 showed higher rates of acceptability (70.07%, n=54) than young women aged 18-29 (53.06%, n=49). 70.7% of participants preferred a device of size 1 inch by 3 inches or less (n=149). CONCLUSIONS Designing a device that incorporates patient preferences increases the likelihood of patient adoption and consistent use. By addressing the needs of underserved and rural communities, this device has the potential to reduce healthcare disparities among mothers and enhance both monitoring and overall health outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Woods et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: