Accepted for/Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Date Submitted: Feb 11, 2018
Open Peer Review Period: Feb 11, 2018 - Jun 18, 2018
Date Accepted: Jun 18, 2018
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
A Web-Based Survey Assessing the Attitudes of Health Care Professionals in Germany Toward the Use of Telemedicine in Pregnancy Monitoring: Cross-Sectional Study
Background:
The demand for fetal monitoring and constant reassurance is high in pregnant women. Consequently, pregnant women use various health apps and are more likely to visit emergency departments due to subjective but nonurgent complaints. However, electronic health (eHealth) and mobile health (mHealth) solutions are rarely used to prevent nonurgent emergency consultations. To implement modern care solutions, a better understanding of the attitudes, fears, and hopes of health care professionals toward eHealth and mHealth is needed.
Objective:
The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes of health care professionals in obstetrics toward telemedicine.
Methods:
A quantitative Web-based survey on health care professionals in obstetrics in Germany was conducted. The participants included nurses, midwives, and physicians of all age groups and job positions working in hospitals that provide various levels of health care. The questionnaire comprised 24 questions about the characteristics of the study population, views about emergency consultations in obstetrics, attitude toward telemedicine, job satisfaction, and sleeping behavior.
Results:
In total, 244 health care professionals participated in the Web-based survey. In general, health care professionals were skeptical (170/233, 72.9%) about the use of telemedicine in obstetrics; however, 55.8% (130/233) recognized its potential. Moreover, 72% (62/86) of physicians were optimistic in using apps for pregnancy monitoring, whereas 36.1% (47/130) of nonphysicians (P<.001) were not. Significantly, more nonphysicians rejected such developments (75/130, 57.7% rejected) compared with physicians (24/86, 28%; P<.001). We also found that obstetricians with more than 10 years of work-experience are more skeptical; however, approximately 49% (18/37) of them believed that telemedicine could reduce nonurgent emergency consultations, whereas 73.2% (106/145) of obstetricians with less than 5 years of experience (P=.01) thought otherwise. Our survey revealed a high job satisfaction and a prevalence of regular sleeping problems of 45.9% (91/198) among health care professionals in obstetrics. Surprisingly, both job satisfaction and sleeping problems were independent from the number of night shifts per month (P=.77 and P=.99, respectively). Yet, 56.6% (112/198) of the survey participants thought they would be happier with their job if they had to work fewer night shifts per month.
Conclusions:
Our study reveals an ambivalent attitude toward the use of telemedicine among health care professionals in obstetrics in Germany at the moment. Efforts to promote the use of telemedicine should focus on nurses and midwives because these groups are the most skeptical. By contrast, particularly young physicians recognize the potential of apps in patient care and would like to use such technology in pregnancy monitoring.
Citation
Per the author's request the PDF is not available.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.