Search

Background: The Pregnancy Remote Monitoring (PREMOM) study enrolled pregnant women at increased risk of developing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and investigated the effect of remote monitoring in addition to their prenatal follow-up., Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the perceptions and experiences of remote monitoring among mothers, midwives, and obstetricians who participated in the PREMOM study., Methods: We developed specific questionnaires for the mothers, midwives, and obstetricians addressing 5 domains: (1) prior knowledge and experience of remote monitoring, (2) reactions to abnormal values, (3) privacy, (4) quality and patient safety, and (5) financial aspects. We also questioned the health care providers about which issues they considered important when implementing remote monitoring. We used a 5-point Likert scale to provide objective scores. It was possible to add free-text feedback at every question., Results: A total of 91 participants completed the questionnaires. The mothers, midwives, and obstetricians reported positive experiences and perceptions of remote monitoring, although most of them had no or little prior experience with this technology. They supported a further rollout of remote monitoring in Belgium. Nearly three-quarters of the mothers (34/47, 72%) did not report any problems with taking the measurements at the required times. Almost half of the mothers (19/47, 40%) wanted to be contacted within 3 to 12 hours after abnormal measurement values, preferably by telephone., Conclusions: Although most of midwives and obstetricians had no or very little experience with remote monitoring before enrolling in the PREMOM study, they reported, based on their one-year experience, that remote monitoring was an important component in the follow-up of high-risk pregnancies and would recommend it to their colleagues and pregnant patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03246737; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03246737 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76KVnHSYY)., (©Dorien Lanssens, Thijs Vandenberk, Joy Lodewijckx, Tessa Peeters, Valerie Storms, Inge M Thijs, Lars Grieten, Wilfried Gyselaers. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 15.04.2019.)

Background: A mobile health application is an exciting, fast-paced domain that is likely to improve prenatal care., Methods: In this narrative review, we summarise the use of mobile health applications in this setting with a special emphasis on both the benefits of remote monitoring devices and the potential pitfalls of their use, highlighting the need for robust regulations and guidelines before their widespread introduction into prenatal care., Results: Remote monitoring devices for four areas of prenatal care are reported: (1) cardio-tocography; (2) blood glucose levels; (3) blood pressure; and (4) prenatal ultrasound. The majority of publications are pilot projects on remote consultation, education, coaching, screening, monitoring and selective booking, mostly reporting potential medical and/or economic benefits by mobile health applications over conventional care for very specific situations, indications and locations, but not always generalizable., Conclusions: Despite the potential advantages of these devices, some caution must be taken when implementing this technology into routine daily practice. To date, the majority of published research on mobile health in the prenatal setting consists of observational studies and there is a need for high-quality randomized controlled trials to confirm the reported clinical and economic benefits as well as the safety of this technology. There is also a need for guidance and governance on the development and validation of new apps and devices and for the implementation of mobile health technology into healthcare systems in both high and low-income settings. Finally, digital communication technologies offer perspectives towards exploration and development of the very new domain of tele-pharmacology., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Objectives: In 2015, we showed the value of a remote monitoring (RM) follow-up program for women diagnosed with gestational hypertensive disorders (GHDs) compared with women who received conventional care (CC). We want to confirm or refute the conclusions drawn in 2015, by including data from 2016., Study Design: A two year retrospective study in which all women diagnosed with GHD, who underwent prenatal follow-up at the outpatients prenatal clinic of Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (Genk, Belgium) during 2015 and 2016, were included. Of the 320 women diagnosed with GHD, ninety (28.13%) were monitored with RM. The other 230 (71.88%) GHD pregnancies were monitored with CC. Differences in continuous and categorical variables in maternal demographics and characteristics were tested using Unpaired Student's two sampled t-test or Mann Whitney U test and the c 2 test. Both a univariate and multivariate analysis were performed for analyzing prenatal follow up and gestational outcomes. All statistical analyses are done at nominal level a = 0.05., Results: The RM group had more women diagnosed with gestational hypertension but less with pre-eclampsia when compared to the CC group (69.77% versus 42.79% and 19.77% versus 44.19% respectively). In both uni- and multivariate analyses, the RM group had, when compared to the CC group, less prenatal admission (51.62% versus 71.63%), less prenatal admissions until the moment of the delivery (31.40% versus 57.67%), less induced starts of the birth process (43.00% versus 32.09%), more spontaneous starts of the birth process (32.86% versus 46.51%), more births after 37 weeks of gestational age in pregnancies complicated with gestational hypertension (91.67% versus 53.33%) and pregnancies complicated with pre-eclampsia (58.82% versus 53.33%). In multivariate analysis, a reduction in total number of prenatal visits was visible in the RM group when compared to the CC group (b = -1.76; CI = -2.74-0.77). Only in the univariate analysis was the mean gestational age at delivery between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation in pregnancies complicated with gestational hypertension higher in the CC group versus the RM group (35 w 4/7 (±0.49) versus 34 w 6/7 (±0.00).These conclusions were almost the same as in the analyses of 2015, except (1) there wasn't a difference anymore in NICU admissions between the RM and CC group in the analyses of 2015-2016 and (2) a significant decrease in total number of visits is reported in the RM group in the dataset of 2015-2016, which wasn't visible in the dataset of 2015., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that RM provides opportunities to offer timely interventions to pregnant women who require them., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Remote monitoring in obstetrics is relatively new; some studies have shown its effectiveness for both mother and child. However, few studies have evaluated the economic impact compared to conventional care, and no cost analysis of a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up program for women diagnosed with gestational hypertensive diseases (GHD) has been published., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the costs of remote monitoring versus conventional care relative to reported benefits., Methods: Patient data from the Pregnancy Remote Monitoring (PREMOM) study were used. Health care costs were calculated from patient-specific hospital bills of Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg (Genk, Belgium) in 2015. Cost comparison was made from three perspectives: the Belgian national health care system (HCS), the National Institution for Insurance of Disease and Disability (RIZIV), and costs for individual patients. The calculations were made for four major domains: prenatal follow-up, prenatal admission to the hospital, maternal and neonatal care at and after delivery, and total amount of costs. A simulation exercise was made in which it was calculated how much could be demanded of RIZIV for funding the remote monitoring service., Results: A total of 140 pregnancies were included, of which 43 received remote monitoring (30.7%) and 97 received conventional care (69.2%). From the three perspectives, there were no differences in costs for prenatal follow-up. Compared to conventional care, remote monitoring patients had 34.51% less HCS and 41.72% less RIZIV costs for laboratory test results (HCS: mean €0.00 [SD €55.34] vs mean €38.28 [SD € 44.08], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €21.09 [SD €27.94] vs mean €36.19 [SD €41.36], P<.001) and a reduction of 47.16% in HCS and 48.19% in RIZIV costs for neonatal care (HCS: mean €989.66 [SD €3020.22] vs mean €1872.92 [SD €5058.31], P<.001; RIZIV: mean €872.97 [SD €2761.64] vs mean €1684.86 [SD €4702.20], P<.001). HCS costs for medication were 1.92% lower in remote monitoring than conventional care (mean €209.22 [SD €213.32] vs mean €231.32 [SD 67.09], P=.02), but were 0.69% higher for RIZIV (mean €122.60 [SD €92.02] vs mean €121.78 [SD €20.77], P<.001). Overall HCS costs for remote monitoring were mean €4233.31 (SD €3463.31) per person and mean €4973.69 (SD €5219.00) per person for conventional care (P=.82), a reduction of €740.38 (14.89%) per person, with savings mainly for RIZIV of €848.97 per person (23.18%; mean €2797.42 [SD €2905.18] vs mean €3646.39 [SD €4878.47], P=.19). When an additional fee of €525.07 per month per pregnant woman for funding remote monitoring costs is demanded, remote monitoring is acceptable in their costs for HCS, RIZIV, and individual patients., Conclusions: In the current organization of Belgian health care, a remote monitoring prenatal follow-up of women with GHD is cost saving for the global health care system, mainly via savings for the insurance institution RIZIV., (©Dorien Lanssens, Thijs Vandenberk, Christophe JP Smeets, Hélène De Cannière, Sharona Vonck, Jade Claessens, Yenthel Heyrman, Dominique Vandijck, Valerie Storms, Inge M Thijs, Lars Grieten, Wilfried Gyselaers. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 26.03.2018.)