Premium
Survey of attitudes of individuals who underwent remote prenatal check‐ups and consultations in response to the COVID ‐19 pandemic
Author(s) -
Nakagawa Kinuko,
Umazume Takeshi,
Mayama Michinori,
Chiba Kentaro,
Saito Yoshihiro,
Noshiro Kiwamu,
Morikawa Mamoru,
Yoshino Masanori,
Watari Hidemichi
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.597
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1447-0756
pISSN - 1341-8076
DOI - 10.1111/jog.14806
Subject(s) - telemedicine , medicine , pandemic , covid-19 , limiting , face to face , pregnancy , family medicine , medical emergency , health care , biology , infectious disease (medical specialty) , engineering , economics , genetics , economic growth , mechanical engineering , philosophy , disease , epistemology
Aim Perinatal telemedicine efforts have commenced worldwide in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. As there have been no prior studies on the acceptance of telemedicine by pregnant women, we conducted this survey to investigate the same. Methods We conducted an anonymous questionnaire survey of pregnant women who underwent telemedicine check‐ups from March 4 to June 30, 2020, using a mobile fetal heart rate monitor and video call system through the Hokkaido University Hospital. Results Out of the 77 individuals who received prenatal telemedicine check‐ups, 54 individuals (70%) had complications, and 64 individuals (83%) consented for the questionnaire survey. In the video call system, 18 individuals (28%) were found to be unwell and 17 individuals (27%) experienced difficulty using the mobile fetal heart rate monitoring device. Assuming scores for face‐to‐face consultations were five out of 10, the mean score for satisfaction was 4.2, but 19 (30%) women felt equal or greater satisfaction with face‐to‐face consultations. If not for the threat of COVID‐19, only four individuals (6%) proactively expressed a desire for telemedicine, with a significantly less demand observed among primiparous women than multiparous women. The permissible additional financial burden enabling telemedicine was $10 or less for 80% of subjects. Conclusion In this small preliminary study, 30% of the pregnant women felt equal or greater satisfaction with telemedicine than face‐to‐face consultations. A stronger demand for telemedicine was exhibited by multiparous women than primiparous women. Thus, a system that would be advantages by limiting subjects and enabling low‐cost examinations is required for making perinatal telemedicine more popular.