Figure 1 The wireless vital sign monitoring system applied onto a mother
Figure 1 The wireless vital sign monitoring system applied onto a mother
Figure 2 Bland Altman plots comparing agreement between wireless and standard vital sign monitoring (A: Heart Rate, B: Respiratory Rate, C: Temperature). Limits of agreement are shown in the shaded region.
Characteristic |
N (%) or median (IQR) |
Age of pregnant women |
38.5 (31.3-51.8) |
Pregnant women’s characteristics |
|
Age categories |
|
18-19 |
7 (14) |
20-24 |
2 (40) |
25-29 |
16 (32) |
30-34 |
6 (12) |
>34 |
1 (2) |
Education level attended |
|
Primary |
27 (54) |
Secondary |
15 (30) |
Tertiary |
8 (16) |
Religion |
|
Protestant |
24 (48) |
Catholic |
14 (28) |
Muslim |
7 (14) |
Other |
5 (10) |
Occupation |
|
Unemployed |
13 (26) |
Self-employed |
14 (28) |
Unskilled labor |
17 (34) |
Professional |
6 (12) |
Marital Status |
|
Married |
46 (92) |
Never Married |
2 (4) |
Other |
2 (4) |
Parity |
|
0 |
18 (36) |
1 |
9 (18) |
2 or more |
23 (46) |
Gestational age |
39.7 (38.4-40.6) |
|
|
Clinician characteristics |
|
Clinician type |
|
Obstetrician |
3 (30) |
Midwife |
7 (70) |
Years of clinical practice |
|
5 or less |
2 (20) |
>5-10 |
3 (30) |
>10 |
5 (50) |
Table1 Participant characteristics (Pregnant women and Clinicians)
Vital sign |
Time |
Wirelessmonitoring device |
Standard Monitors |
||
Functionality |
|
N |
Median (IQR) |
N |
Median (IQR) |
Heart rate |
|
||||
|
0 |
36 |
91 (87-101) |
50 |
93 (83-98) |
|
15 |
47 |
94 (89-101) |
50 |
92 (84-98) |
|
30 |
41 |
94 (91-99) |
50 |
95 (83-101) |
Respiratory rate |
|
||||
|
0 |
36 |
18 (14-20) |
50 |
20 (18-24) |
|
15 |
47 |
18 (16-20) |
50 |
20 (18-24) |
|
30 |
42 |
18 (15-19) |
50 |
20 (19-24) |
Temperature |
|
||||
|
0 |
36 |
37.2 (37.1-37.3) |
50 |
36.4 (36.1-36.8) |
|
15 |
47 |
37.5 (37.5-37.6) |
50 |
36.5 (35.9-36.8) |
|
30 |
42 |
37.6 (37.5-37.6) |
50 |
36.4 (36.1-36.8) |
Table2 Summary of vital sign measurements
|
Heart Rate |
Respiratory Rate |
Temperature |
Percentile |
25th 50th 75th |
25th 50th 75th |
25th 50th 75th |
Table3 Mean difference and LOA
*LOA (Limits of agreement)
|
Pregnant women |
Clinicians |
How comfortable did you find wearing the monitor? |
||
Very comfortable |
45 (90%) |
n/a |
Comfortable |
3 (6%) |
n/a |
Neutral/ok |
1 (2%) |
n/a |
Somewhat bothersome |
1 (2%) |
n/a |
Very bothersome |
0 (0%) |
n/a |
How useful did you find the monitor? |
||
Very Useful |
43 (86%) |
10(100) |
Useful |
7 (14%) |
0(0%) |
Somewhat useful |
0 (0%) |
0(0%) |
Not at all useful |
0 (0%) |
0(0%) |
What do you think of the monitor? |
||
I really like it |
43 (86%) |
8 (80%) |
I like it |
7 (14%) |
2 (20%) |
Neutral/OK |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
I do not like it |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
I really do not like it |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
How likely would you be to wear the monitor again or recommend its use to another patient? |
||
I definitely would |
49 (98%) |
10 (83%) |
I wouldn’t care one way or the other |
0 (0%) |
2 (17%) |
I definitely would not |
1 (2%) |
0 (0) |
Compared to standard of care monitoring, how easy did you find using the wireless vital sign monitor? |
||
Very Easy |
n/a |
10 (100) |
Easy |
n/a |
0 (0%) |
Neutral/ok |
n/a |
0 (0%) |
Difficult |
n/a |
0 (0) |
Very difficult |
n/a |
0 (0) |
Table4 Acceptability of the wireless monitor