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
Average
Mean difference
Limits of Agreement (LOA) (±)

25th      50th       75th
86.4    93.4      98.2
4.5      3.9         3.6
10      10.5       10.9

25th      50th       75th
17.7    19.1       21.4
-2.5     -2.7        -3
8.1      8.2         8.4

25th      50th     75th
36.7      37      37.2
1.5        1        0.7
0.4       0.1      -0.1

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