Skip to main content
PLOS Digital Health logoLink to PLOS Digital Health
. 2024 May 7;3(5):e0000499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000499

Every sip counts: Understanding hydration behaviors and user-acceptability of digital tools to promote adequate intake during early and late pregnancy

Abigail M Pauley 1,*, Asher Y Rosinger 2,3, Jennifer S Savage 4, David E Conroy 1, Danielle Symons Downs 1,5
Editor: Haleh Ayatollahi6
PMCID: PMC11075850  PMID: 38713720

Abstract

Maintaining adequate hydration over the course of pregnancy is critical for maternal and fetal health and reducing risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes (e.g., preeclampsia, low placental and amniotic fluid volume). Recent evidence suggests that women may be at risk for under-hydration in the second and third trimesters when water needs begin to increase. Scant research has examined pregnant women’s knowledge of hydration recommendations, water intake behaviors, and willingness to use digital tools to promote water intake. This study aimed to: 1) describe hydration recommendation knowledge and behaviors by the overall sample and early vs late pregnancy, and 2) identify habits and barriers of using digital tools. Pregnant women (N = 137; M age = 30.9 years; M gestational age = 20.9) completed a one-time, 45-minute online survey. Descriptive statistics quantified women’s knowledge of hydration recommendations, behaviors, and attitudes about utilizing digital tools to promote adequate intake, and Mann-Whitney U and chi-squared tests were used to determine group differences. Most women lacked knowledge of and were not meeting hydration recommendations (63%, 67%, respectively) and were not tracking their fluid consumption (59%). Knowledge of hydration recommendations differed by time of pregnancy, such that women in later pregnancy reported 82 ounces compared to women in early pregnancy (49 ounces). Common barriers included: forgetting to drink (47%), not feeling thirsty (47%), and increased urination (33%). Most were willing to use digital tools (69%) and believed a smart water bottle would help them achieve daily fluid recommendations (67%). These initial findings suggest that pregnant women may benefit from useful strategies to increase knowledge, decrease barriers, and maintain adequate hydration, specifically earlier in pregnancy. These findings will inform the design of a behavioral intervention incorporating smart connected water bottles, wearables for gesture detection, and behavior modification strategies to overcome barriers, promote proper hydration and examine its impact on maternal and infant health outcomes.

Author summary

Maintaining adequate hydration over the course of pregnancy is critical for maternal and fetal health and reducing risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes (e.g., preeclampsia, low placental and amniotic fluid volume). Recent evidence suggests that women may be at risk for under-hydration in the second and third trimesters when water needs begin to increase. Scant research has examined pregnant women’s knowledge of hydration recommendations, water intake behaviors, and willingness to use digital tools to promote water intake. This study aimed to: 1) describe hydration recommendation knowledge and behaviors by the overall sample and early vs late pregnancy, and 2) identify habits and barriers of using digital tools. Initial findings suggest that pregnant women may benefit from useful strategies to increase knowledge, decrease barriers, and maintain adequate hydration, specifically earlier in pregnancy. These findings will inform the design of a behavioral intervention incorporating smart connected water bottles, wearables for gesture detection, and behavior modification strategies to overcome barriers, promote proper hydration and examine its impact on maternal and infant health outcomes.

Introduction

Maintaining adequate hydration over the course of pregnancy is critical for maternal and fetal health and reducing risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes [16]. To ensure proper functioning and growth for both mother and fetus (i.e., adequate amniotic fluid volume and plasma volume balance, proper fetal brain development, and reduced risk of low-birth weight and fetal arterial hypertension [7,8]), hydration needs increase above what is required for non-pregnant individuals. Hydration guidelines suggest that non-pregnant women ages 18–50 years old, should consume 2.7 L/day of total water consumption, which includes 2.2 L (9 cups) as total beverages, including drinking water [7]. Pregnant women should consume 3.0 L/day of total water, which includes approximately 2.3 L (10 cups, ~80 ounces) as total beverages, including drinking water [7]. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend a range of 8 to 12 cups/day (64 to 96 ounces/day, 1.9 to 2.8 L/day) [9], which accounts for varied needs, due to greater body composition and body mass, living in hotter temperatures and engaging in physical activity [10,11]. In addition to drinking water, pregnant women are also encouraged to incorporate water-dense foods in their diet (i.e., fruits, vegetables) and track their water intake. If pregnant women are not meeting these guidelines, under-hydration may occur, leading to adverse pregnancy outcomes. New mothers and their fetuses/infants may be at a greater risk for maternal and infant mortality. Proper hydration may reduce the risks of headaches, constipation, low amniotic fluid, inadequate breast milk production, and premature birth [17,9].

However, few studies have examined how much water pregnant women are drinking and if they are meeting current hydration recommendations. For example, one study by Bardosono and colleagues [12] examined water intake behaviors and knowledge of hydration recommendations of pregnant women living in Indonesia. They found that 42% of pregnant women fell short of the recommended water intake of 2.08 L/day and 14% lacked knowledge of the water intake recommendations. Another study by Zhou and colleagues [13] examined water intake in women living in China and found that the majority of pregnant (72%) and breastfeeding (73%) women were not meeting the Chinese Nutrition Society [14] total water intake recommendations of 3.0 L/d and 3.8 L/day, respectively. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [15] report that women over 20 years of age are only consuming on average, 1.23 L of water each day, which suggests women who become pregnant are not drinking enough to begin with, which could lead to further under-hydration.

A third study by Rosinger and colleagues [16] found evidence to suggest that pregnant women may be at risk for under-hydration in the second and third trimesters when water needs begin to increase. Rosinger and colleagues [16] examined urine osmolality and under-hydration levels in pregnant women with overweight/obesity participating in the Healthy Mom Zone gestational weight gain regulation intervention [17,18]. As part of a larger, multicomponent intervention, women in the intervention group were encouraged to track their water intake, increase intake of water-dense foods, and meet the hydration guidelines of consuming at least 2.4 L of water from ~8–36 weeks gestation [7,17,18]. Women used the MyFitnessPal app (a smartphone app used to track daily food and beverage intake, and exercise behaviors; [19]) to track their daily hydration behaviors and biomarkers of hydration levels (i.e., weekly urine samples) were collected and analyzed to examine hydration levels [16]. These analyses found that the intervention was successful in promoting proper hydration in pregnant women with overweight/obesity [16]. More specifically, the intervention women maintained a significantly lower overnight urine osmolality (adequately hydrated) compared to the control group who had higher overnight urine osmolality during the second and third trimesters [16]. The MyFitnessPal app [19] was used to track diet quality and hydration behaviors as maternal nutrition (eating water-dense foods, drinking water and water-based fluids) is essential to promote healthy pregnancies and offspring health. However, over- and under-reporting of foods and beverages has been widely documented, thus highlighting the need for other more accurate and reliable modes of measurement [20,21]. The development of other digital tools may also offer benefits for promoting hydration.

For example, one digital tool that has many variations, is a smart water bottle, which tracks the volume of water consumed throughout the day and alerts the user when not drinking enough in relation to their personal fluid intake goal, has been developed to improve water intake levels. One study examined the thoughts and preferences of 94 individuals with kidney stones in relation to making lifestyle changes to prevent kidney stones. Streeper and colleagues [22] found that technology has not been previously used in meeting fluid intake recommendations in this population and most individuals felt that an app or device would improve their adherence and would be interested in using an app or device [22]. Based on these findings, Conroy and colleagues [23] developed a Just-in-Time adaptive intervention (an intervention design that aims to provide the right amount/type of support, at the most opportune time, by meeting the changing needs of the individual), sipIT, to promote fluid consumption in patients with kidney stones. During this intervention, 31 subjects with a history of kidney stones used digital tools (H2Opal connected water bottle, H2OPal mobile app, and a Fitbit smartwatch app [24] for sip gesture detection) for three months. Subjects also completed measures on barriers to adherence, usability, learnability, satisfaction, and success of the sipIT tools. The authors found that the sipIT digital tools were technically feasible and acceptable and reduced barriers for fluid intake guideline adherence [23].

In another study using a “shove” approach via a bottle that overflows if the user hasn’t consumed enough, Beddoe and colleagues [25] found that while only 59% of the 24 participants would use the bottle in their daily lives, 92% believed it was effective in promoting healthy hydration behaviors. Also, due to the overflow nature of the bottle, 84% were concerned to leave it on their desk or workspace for fear of a leak, which may lead to disengagement. Lastly, Cohen and colleagues [26] aimed to validate four commercially available smart bottles in terms of performance (i.e., number of missed sip recordings, mean error, sip mean percent error, mean absolute error, and cumulative mean percent error) and functionality. The study included two phases: 1) a controlled sip volume phase and 2) a free-living phase where a single user drank from the bottle throughout the day as they normally would [26]. The authors concluded that three of the four bottles tested were accurate, easily calibrated, and were consistent over time [26]. However, there is scant research on pregnant women’s knowledge of hydration recommendations, behaviors taken to stay hydrated, and their willingness to engage in using digital tools (e.g., smart water bottle, phone app) to promote adequate water intake. The use of digital tools may improve the accuracy of measuring water intake during pregnancy for researchers and participants to effectively promote adequate hydration in the prenatal period.

Thus, to address this gap, the goals of this paper were to describe knowledge of hydration guidelines and water intake behaviors and identify habits and barriers of using digital tools to maintain adequate hydration among pregnant women. Based on previous research [22], it is hypothesized that pregnant women are unaware of hydration recommendations and are not accurately tracking their hydration but will be open and willing to use a smart connected water bottle during pregnancy. It is also hypothesized that knowledge of hydration recommendations and their likelihood/willingness will differ by trimester such that women early in their pregnancies (1st and 2nd trimesters) may be more knowledgeable about hydration recommendations and may be more willing to use a smart connected water bottle compared to women later in their pregnancies (3rd trimester) [16].

Methods

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Pennsylvania State University Institutional Review Board (STUDY00016174). Formal written consent was provided by each participant prior to completing the survey.

Research participants

Pregnant women were recruited via social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), flyers posted in community sites and obstetrics and gynecology clinics, and University research recruitment websites from December 2020 to March 2022. The study was advertised across the United States. Interested women would contact the study team and the team would send a screening survey via REDCap [27,28] to determine eligibility. Women were eligible if they were: currently pregnant, 18 years or older, and able to read and respond in English. Each woman was entered into a monthly drawing for a $50 gift card for completing the survey.

Study design

If women met the eligibility criteria, they were sent via email, a link to access the consent form and a one-time online survey using the secure data collection instrument REDCap [27,28]. This survey examined their knowledge of prenatal hydration behaviors and acceptability of digital tools (i.e., smartphone app and connected water bottle that tracks fluid consumption and sends reminders to drink throughout the day).

Research Instrument

The survey was developed based on prior studies to examine formative research, specific validated surveys, and surveys that were adapted to be specific to pregnancy [22,29] (see S1 Questionnaire). One open ended question was asked to understand knowledge of water intake guidelines: “Do you know how much water you should be drinking in a day (in ounces?)” Ounces were then converted to liters. The answers were then dichotomized as: Less than 2.4 L and Greater than 2.4 L. These dichotomized cut-offs were used based on the recommendations the Institute of Medicines Dietary Reference manual [7], which states that pregnant women ages 19–40 years old should obtain approximately 2.3 L of their total daily water intake from beverages, including drinking water [7]. Four questions were asked to understand general behaviors for water intake and fluid consumption: 1) “Do you keep tracking of your daily fluid consumption and if yes, describe the strategies.” 2) “What is your preferred beverage of choice” with responses including: Water/Flavored Water, Tea/Iced Tea, Juice, Soda, Coffee, and Other; 3) “Over the past week, how successful have you been at meeting fluid intake guidelines?” with response options ranging from 1-Rarely Successful (0–4 days) to 5- Always Successful (7 days); and 4) “How frequently do you eat food with high water content?” with response options ranging from 1–1 to4 days/week to 3- Multiple times/day.

Four questions were asked to understand habit strength towards drinking water using a 1–3 Likert scale with responses ranging from 1- Disagree to 3- Agree: 1) “Drinking water is something I do automatically.”; 2) “Drinking water is something I do without having to consciously remember.”; 3) “Drinking water is something I do without thinking.”; and 4) “Drinking water is something I start doing before I realize I’m doing it.” [23]. One question with 16 pregnancy-specific response options was asked to identify barriers to meeting water intake recommendations: 1) “Which of the following have been barriers to meeting fluid intake guidelines?” Barrier options included: I am not thirsty enough, I forget to drink, It is a hassle to carry around a water bottle, I have to urinate too frequently if I drink that much, It’ hard to drink enough at work, I don’t like the taste of water, I am not aware of the need to drink more, It makes me feel bloated, Fluid is not easily available at work, I feel nauseous, It keeps me up at night, It is painful to drink that much with the baby pushing down on my bladder, I have a small bladder, I have acid reflux and it is uncomfortable, I have morning sickness, Other. Two Yes/No questions were asked to understand digital tool use: 1) “Have you ever installed an app on your phone or tablet to help you increase fluid consumption (hydration)?” and 2) “Have you ever owned a connected water bottle that tracks or provides reminders about fluid consumption? This water bottle connects to your phone via an app and tracks how much you drink throughout the day based on the weight (volume) of the water/fluid.”

Three Likert-scale questions were asked to understand the likelihood/willingness to use digital tools to promote hydration: 1) “How interested would you be in using a new smartphone application or device to aid in meeting the fluid consumption recommendations of 81 ounces per day?” with response options ranging from 1- Uninterested to 3- Interested; 2) “How likely is a smartphone application or device to help you meet the fluid consumption recommendations of 8 ounces per day?”; and 3) “How likely would a connected water bottle to measure/monitor volume of fluids consumed (This water bottle will be connected to your phone via an app to track your water consumption throughout the day)?” with response options ranging from 1- Unlikely to 3- Likely.

Data collection and analysis

All surveys were completed in the participant’s own home and own device via a REDCap survey link. Once the surveys were completed, data was downloaded from the secure survey database by the study staff, into IBM SPSS 28.0.1.0 [30]. Study staff cleaned the data to designate and remove any outliers. Descriptive statistics were used to examine means, standard deviations, frequencies, Mann-Whitney U Tests, and Chi-squared tests were used to determine significant group differences between early (1st and 2nd trimesters) vs late in pregnancy (3rd trimester), regarding hydration behaviors and acceptability of the digital tools using IBM SPSS 28.0.1.0 [30]. Given pilot exploratory nature of this study, study size was powered on hydration recommendation knowledge. The survey remained opened for 6 months and closed after the 6 month time period.

Results

Participant characteristics

A total of N = 404 pregnant women were contacted and provided responses to the survey. Due to a 34% completion rate, only a sample of N = 137 responses were included in the analyses. The majority of women were recruited through social media (50.4%) and from across the United States. Outside of social media, 31.4% of women heard about the study from other internet sources (Google, Research Match, and email), 12.4% heard about the study via word of mouth, and 8.8% saw a flyer at their provider’s office. The survey link was included on all social media posts allowing direct access and ability to complete the survey easily and the link was shared easily. A low completion rate could be due to starting the survey and no longer wanting to participate due to various factors such as lack of compensation, the length of the survey, and time constraints. Their mean age was 30.9 years (± 24.3) and had a mean gestational age of 20.9 (± 9.7) weeks gestation. Most women were White (62.8%), employed full time (37.2%), had a bachelor’s and/or graduate/professional degree (40.1%), and an annual income of less than $40,000 (74.4%). Table 1.

Table 1. Participant demographics of pregnant women (N = 137).

Mean ± SD N (%)
Age 30.9 ± 24.3 years -
Gestational Age 20.9 ± 9.7 weeks -
Race/Ethnicity -
 White - 86 (62.8)
 American Indian/Alaskan Native - 29 (21.2)
 African American/Black - 4 (2.9)
 Asian - 7 (5.1)
 Other - 3 (2.9)
 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander - 3 (2.9)
 Two or more - 1 (0.7)
Employment -
 Full-Time/Self-Employed - 51(37.2)
 Part-Time - 39 (28.5)
 Unemployed - 36 (26.3)
 Student - 4 (2.9)
 Retired 2 (2.2)
Education -
 Less than High School - 18 (12.4)
 High school/GED - 17(12.4)
 Some College, no degree - 16 (11.7)
 Trade/Technical School - 17 (12.4)
 Associate degree - 10 (7.3)
 Bachelor’s degree - 31 (22.6)
 Graduate/Professional degree - 24 (17.5)
Family Income -
 <$40,000 - 102 (74.4)
 >$40,000 - 30 (21.9)
 Other - 1 (.7)

Knowledge of Water Intake Guidelines

When asked about how much water pregnant women are recommended to drink each day, most women overall (47%) reported less than 2.4 L, 37% reported greater than 2.4 L, and 16% reported to not know at all. Further exploration by early vs late pregnancy showed that most women in early pregnancy (64%) reported less than 2.4 L, 18% reported greater than 2.4 L, and 18% did not know. Women in late pregnancy reported less than 2.4 L (45%), greater than 2.4 L (41%), and did not know (14%). Women in early pregnancy reported significantly lower recommended values of water/day (1.5 L) compared to women in late pregnancy (2.4 L; U = 666.5, n1 = 15, n2 = 60; p = 0.004).

Water Intake and Fluid Consumption Behaviors

When asked about their preferred choice of beverage, 70% of women reported that water/flavored water, 17% reported juice, 9% reported tea/iced tea, 2% reported soda, 1.5% reported coffee, and .75% reported Other. When asked how successful they are at meeting the fluid consumption recommendation each day, most women (67%) reported only being successful in meeting the fluid consumption recommendations 0–4 days/week, 24% were often successful (5–6 days/week), and 8% were always successful (7 days/week). When asked how often women eat foods high in water (i.e., fruits, vegetables), the majority (83%) reported eating foods high in water multiple times a day over the course of a week, 9% reported eating high water foods 4–6 days/week, and 8% reported eating high water foods 0–3 days/week.

Habit Strength Toward Drinking Water

When asked if drinking water is something they do automatically, most women (82%) agreed, 9% disagreed, and 9% neither agreed nor disagreed (Fig 1A). When asked if drinking water is something they do without thinking, most women (77%) agreed, 13% disagreed, and 10% neither agreed nor disagreed (Fig 1B). When asked if drinking water is something they do without having to consciously remember, most women (75%) agreed, 11% disagreed, and 14% neither agreed nor disagreed (Fig 1C). When asked if drinking water was something they start doing before they realize they’re doing it, most women agreed (65%) agreed, 12% disagreed, and 23% neither agreed nor disagreed (Fig 1D). However, when asked if they currently track their fluid intake, 59% of women reported no, 31% reported yes, and 10% were unsure (Fig 2A). Further exploration by early vs late pregnancy showed that women in early (58%) and late (61%) pregnancy reported no, 29% (early) and 31% (late) reported yes, and 13% (early) and 8% (late) were unsure (Fig 2B). There were no significant differences between early vs late pregnancy (p’s > 0.05). When asked their current tracking method, many women (31%) reported they do not but 26% reported they count their water bottles/how many times they fill it. Other responses for this question can be found in Table 2.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

A. Drinking water is something I do automatically (N = 130). B. Drinking water is something I do without thinking (N = 125). C. Drinking water is something I do without having to consciously remember (N = 125). D. Drinking water is something I start doing before I realize I’m doing it (N = 124).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

A. Do you keep track of your daily fluid consumption? Overall sample (N = 124). B. Do you keep track of your daily fluid consumption? By early vs late pregnancy (early pregnancy n = 24, late pregnancy n = 91).

Table 2. Responses to Hydration Knowledge, Behaviors, and Digital Tool Feasibility Questions (N = 135).
Please describe the strategies you CURRENTLY use to track your fluid consumption:
Response N %
None 42 31
Count water bottles 35 26
Drink consistently throughout the day 13 10
Drink when pregnancy symptoms come up 12 9
Set an ounce goal 8 6
Notebook 8 6
Tracking app 7 5
Drink preferable liquids 6 4
Drink with meals 2 1.5
Electronic scale 2 1.5

Barriers to Meeting Fluid Intake Recommendations

Women were asked about major barriers that keep them from meeting the recommended fluid intake and the most frequently reported answers included: forgetting to drink (47%), not feeling thirsty (47%), causing increased urination (33%), feeling it is a hassle (24%), and makes them feel bloated and nauseous (20%). A bar graph of these and other responses can be found in Fig 3.

Fig 3. Barriers to meeting fluid intake guidelines (N = 137).

Fig 3

Likelihood/Willingness to Use Digital Tools

When asked if they have ever installed an app on their phone to help increase fluid consumption, most women (56%) reported no, 41% reported yes, and 3% were unsure. Further exploration by early vs late pregnancy showed that most women in early pregnancy (56%) reported yes, 36% reported no, and 8% were unsure. Women in late pregnancy reported yes (37%) and reported no (63%). When asked if they’ve ever owned a smart connected water bottle that tracks or provides reminders about fluid consumption, most women (61%) responded no, 36% reported yes, and 3% were unsure. Further exploration by early vs late pregnancy showed that most women in early and late pregnancy reported no (56% and 66%, respectively), 44% and 33% reported yes, respectively, and only 1% in late pregnancy were unsure. When asked how interested they would be in using a new smartphone application or device to aid in meeting the fluid consumption recommendations each day, most women (69%) reported they would be interested, 21% reported to be uninterested, and 10% were neither interested nor uninterested. Further exploration by early vs late pregnancy showed that most women in early and late pregnancy would be interested (84% and 67%, respectively), 12% and 22% would be uninterested, respectively, and 4% and 11%, respectively were neither interested nor uninterested. When asked how likely they would use a smartphone application or device to aid in meeting the fluid consumption recommendations each day, most women (68%) responded likely, 20% reported unlikely, and 12% reported neither likely nor unlikely. Further exploration by early vs late pregnancy showed that most women in early and late pregnancy responded likely (88% and 64%, respectively), 8% and 23% reported unlikely, respectively, and 4% and 13%, respectively reported neither likely nor unlikely. When asked how likely a smartphone application or device would aid in meeting the fluid consumption recommendations each day, most women (67%) responded likely, 20% responded unlikely, and 13% were unsure. Further exploration by early vs late pregnancy showed that most women in early and late pregnancy responded likely (71%, both), 25% and 19% reported unlikely, respectively, and 4% and 10%, respectively were unsure. There were no significant differences between early vs late pregnancy for any of the questions (p’s > 0.05).

Discussion

This is one of the first studies to our knowledge to describe prenatal hydration knowledge, habits, behaviors, and barriers as well as identify women’s willingness to use digital tools to maintain adequate hydration during pregnancy. Overall, most women were unaware of the fluid consumption recommendations, were not successful in meeting the recommendations, and do not regularly track their fluid consumption. Women later in pregnancy knew of and were exceeding the hydration recommendations compared to women early in pregnancy. However, we also found that most women owned a smartphone or tablet/computer and reported that they would be interested in and likely use a smart, connected water bottle to help increase their fluid consumption. These findings highlight that pregnant women may want to use these useful strategies to increase knowledge, decrease barriers, and maintain adequate hydration over pregnancy, particularly before conception and early in pregnancy to improve hydration behaviors throughout the entire pregnancy. The results are described in more detail below.

Consistent with previous findings [12,31], we also observed that women lacked knowledge about guidelines, were not adequately meeting the hydration recommendations, and were not regularly tracking their water intake. Similarly, when examining hydration behaviors in former kidney stone patients, the majority of pregnant women forgot to drink or didn’t feel thirsty [28]. However, we found that most women reported they drink water throughout the day, which is in direct contrast to the majority reporting they forget to drink or didn’t feel thirsty. Our study findings suggest there is a gap between women’s knowledge and their actual hydration behaviors, and perceived behavior highlights the need to promote adequate hydration behaviors during pregnancy. Our findings also highlight the need for education and increased knowledge prior to conception and early in the pregnancy to continue healthy hydration behaviors throughout the entire pregnancy and into postpartum as many women were not meeting the hydration recommendations. This gap may increase the risks for adverse pregnancy and postpartum outcomes (i.e., excessive gestational weight gain, hypertensive disorders, preterm births, and gestational diabetes [32]), which increases the risk for maternal mortality. Thus, there is a need for strategies to promote knowledge and adequate intake recommendations and strategies during pregnancy.

The majority of women stated they own a smartphone or tablet but have never used an app or smart connected water bottle to track their water consumption. The development and integration of digital tools to monitor various lifestyle behaviors has been on the rise over the last two decades. For example, Fitbit has developed and disseminated multiple wearable activity and sleep tracking devices and WiFi/Bluetooth connected weight scales along with their smartphone app [24]. The app has various features that tracks and displays data on physical activity and sleep patterns but also integrates eating and hydration behaviors [24]. However, for the app to track these behaviors, the user has to manually enter the information. As stated above, many barriers include forgetting to drink and not feeling thirsty. If women are forgetting to drink and aren’t feeling thirsty, they most likely will not utilize the app to track their behaviors if they need to manually input the information. Many women had reported using and counting water bottles as their tracking method, which could be a reason for the wide gap in knowledge, perceived intake, and actual intake. It has also been found that there is under- and over-reporting when pregnant women self-report their dietary behaviors, which decreases the accuracy of their behaviors and intake. More advanced technology that takes away the self-report nature of hydration tracking may be useful, particularly when used during pregnancy and provides a more hands-off approach when counseling women on their hydration needs. However, there are other novel technologies outside of water bottles that may be useful such as wrist-worn sensors that monitor sip gestures by hand/arm movement that can estimate fluid intake amount passively [33,34]. These digital tools may be more advantageous to use in tandem, in order to gather more behavior data and promote hydration.

Since women are already using water bottles to drink water, the use of a smart water bottle would be an easy transition as well as a more enjoyable experience. Since the water bottle tracks how much they have been drinking throughout the day, sends reminders to drink, and has the capabilities to set goals and motivate women to drink more water, this could promote the increase in their confidence to meet goals and recommendations by increasing their fluid intake in a virtual, free-living settings. More importantly, to reduce the risks of adverse pregnancy and postpartum outcomes and maternal mortality, using this water bottle in conjunction with other digital tools, such as wearable sensors, provides insight on and the promotion of hydration behaviors without being too intrusive or life disrupting when preparing to delivery or caring for an infant.

Strengths and limitations

There were several strengths of this study, one of which was that it was one of the first to understand pregnant women’s thoughts, beliefs, preferences, and needs regarding hydration, hydration behaviors, and the use of digital tools overall but also based on trimester. Previous research has focused on associations of hydration levels on pregnancy outcomes [10,35], measuring hydration levels during pregnancy [11,32] and intravenous hydration [36], while this study focused on understanding how researchers can promote hydration behaviors during pregnancy. These findings highlight the major knowledge and research gaps when it comes to hydration behaviors during pregnancy. More research is needed to fully understand the novelty of a smart connected water bottle and other digital tools when trying to promote hydration behaviors. However, this study was not without limitations. The study sample was mostly a homogenous sample of white, fully employed, middle income women and results may not be generalizable to other groups within the pregnant population. Replication of this study is needed for women with more diverse backgrounds, as Black and Hispanic women are less likely to drink water, to understand their hydration behaviors and to determine if the use of digital tools would be as well received or useful [37]. Further, water recommendations are not a one-size fits all. Greater body composition and body mass, living in hotter temperatures and engaging in physical activity all increase water needs and thus some pregnant women may need more or less than the AI recs depending on their specific situation [11]. The data were cross-sectional and do not accurately portray how thoughts, beliefs, and preferences might change over the course of pregnancy. The data were also self-reported and may have introduced bias and/or under- or over-reporting of their water intake so there may not have been accurate values of water consumption. Lastly, there are varied ranges in the literature for recommended water intake values of 1.9–2.8 L (64–96 ounces) [9]. This study used a dichotomous cutoff of 2.3 L (81 ounces) [7] to classify meeting vs not meeting hydration recommendations for feasibility purposes but future work should explore variations in water intake as the literature suggests [7,9].

Conclusions

The findings from this study suggest that pregnant women are unaware of prenatal hydration recommendations, potentially the adverse pregnancy and infant outcomes under-hydration may cause, and do not accurately track their fluid intake. However, women in later pregnancy knew of and were exceeding hydration recommendations compared to women in early pregnancy. This important finding highlights the need for increased education and knowledge during the preconception and early pregnancy time frames. This will allow for healthy hydration behaviors to be sustained throughout pregnancy and postpartum. The study findings also suggest that women are interested in and feel that the utilization of digital tools (e.g., smart water bottle and app) would be useful in increasing fluid consumption during pregnancy. By providing reminders to drink, this will help overcome the barrier of forgetting to drink. However, there weren’t any significant differences between early vs late pregnancy. The use of the water bottle and app will allow for women to self-monitor, get regular feedback on their behaviors, and create challenges to increase their motivation to meet their goals and recommendations so they start and continue to drink water, even if they don’t necessarily feel thirsty. However, many hydration recommendations, education, and digital tools, are not pregnancy specific. More research and development of recommendation, educational content, and digital tools that are pregnancy specific are needed. As such, education on prenatal fluid consumption recommendations, the benefits of staying hydrated, setting goals and tracking using digital tools, can be built into hydration promotion interventions, particularly during preconception and early pregnancy. By using digital tools to promote and increase hydration behaviors during pregnancy, the risks associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes may be lessened.

Supporting information

S1 Questionnaire. Demographics & health history.

(DOCX)

pdig.0000499.s001.docx (38.3KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Exercise Psychology Laboratory Research Assistants at the Pennsylvania State (University Park campus) who assisted with data collection and analyses for this study.

The content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH/NIDDK, the Pennsylvania State University or NCATS.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because the data collected on human subjects was not IRB approved to be shared publicly. Also, since it is human subjects data, a data transfer agreement is needed. Data are available from the Pennsylvania State University Office for Research Protections at orp@psu.edu or 814-865-1775 for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

This project was supported by the Penn State Clinical & Translational Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University CTSA, and NCATS Grant Number UL1 TR000127 and UL1 TR002014. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hofmeyr G, Gülmezoglu A, Novikova N. Maternal hydration for increasing amniotic fluid volume in oligohydramnios and normal amniotic fluid volume. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000134. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lederman S, Paxton A, Heymsfield S, Wang J, Thornton J, Pierson R Jr. Body fat and water changes during pregnancy in women with different body weight and weight gain. Obstet Gynecol. 1997. Oct;90(4 Pt 1):483–8. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00355-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Savitz D, Andrews K, Pastore L. Drinking water and pregnancy outcome in central North Carolina: source, amount, and trihalomethane levels. Environ Health Perspect. 1995. Jun;103(6):592–6. doi: 10.1289/ehp.95103592 ; PMCID: PMC1519129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Thiombiano-Coulibaly N, Rocquelin G, Eymard-Duvernay S, Zougmoré ON, Traoré S. Effects of early extra fluid and food intake on breast milk consumption and infant nutritional status at 5 months of age in an urban and a rural area of Burkina Faso. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004. Jan;58(1):80–9. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601752 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Valensise H, Andreoli A, Lello S, Magnani F, Romanini C, De Lorenzo A. Multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis in women with a normal and hypertensive pregnancy. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000. Sep;72(3):780–3. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/72.3.780 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Villar J, Cogswell M, Kestler E, Castillo P, Menendez R, Repke J. Effect of fat and fat-free mass deposition during pregnancy on birth weight. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992. Nov;167(5):1344–52. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(11)91714-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate. 2005. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press: 151–152. doi: 10.17226/10925 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mulyani E, Hardinsyah, Briawan D, Santoso B, Jus’at I. Effect of dehydration during pregnancy on birth weight and length in West Jakarta. J Nutr Sci. 2021. Aug 27;10:e70. doi: 10.1017/jns.2021.59 ; PMCID: PMC8411261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) [Internet]. Ask ACOG: How much water should I drink during pregnancy?; c2024 [cited 2024 Feb 12]. Available from: https://www.acog.org/womens-health/experts-and-stories/ask-acog/how-much-water-should-i-drink-during-pregnancy [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Duarte G, Carmona R, Camacho C. Prevention of constipation during pregnancy with the hydration. Nutr Hosp. 2015. Dec 1;32 Suppl 2:10298. doi: 10.3305/nh.2015.32.sup2.10298 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Rosinger A. Biobehavioral variation in human water needs: How adaptations, early life environments, and the life course affect body water homeostasis. Am J Hum Biol. 2020. Jan;32(1):e23338. doi: 10.1002/ajhb.23338 Epub 2019 Oct 21. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bardosono S, Monrozier R, Permadhi I, Manikam N, Pohan R, Guelinckx I. Total fluid intake assessed with a 7-day fluid record versus a 24-h dietary recall: a crossover study in Indonesian adolescents and adults. Eur J Nutr. 2015. Jun;54 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):17–25. doi: 10.1007/s00394-015-0954-6 Epub 2015 Jun 14. ; PMCID: PMC4473025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhou Y, Zhu X, Qin Y, Li Y, Zhang M, Liu W, et al. Association between total water intake and dietary intake of pregnant and breastfeeding women in China: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019. May 15;19(1):172. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2301-z ; PMCID: PMC6521377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chinese Nutrition Society. The food guide pagoda for Chinese residents. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chen T, Clark J, Riddles M, Mohadjer L, Fakhouri T. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015−2018: Sample design and estimation procedures. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat. 2020 2(184). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rosinger A, Bethancourt H, Pauley A, Latona C, John J, Kelyman A, et al. Variation in urine osmolality throughout pregnancy: a longitudinal, randomized-control trial among women with overweight and obesity. Eur J Nutr. 2022. Feb;61(1):127–140. doi: 10.1007/s00394-021-02616-x Epub 2021 Jul 3. ; PMCID: PMC8720908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Symons Downs D, Savage J, Rivera D, Smyth J, Rolls B, Hohman E, et al. Individually tailored, adaptive intervention to manage gestational weight gain: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial in women with overweight and obesity. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018. Jun 8;7(6):e150. doi: 10.2196/resprot.9220 ; PMCID: PMC6015270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Downs D, Savage J, Rivera D, Pauley A, Leonard K, Hohman E, et al. Adaptive, behavioral intervention impact on weight gain, physical activity, energy intake, and motivational determinants: results of a feasibility trial in pregnant women with overweight/obesity. J Behav Med. 2021 Oct;44(5):605–621. doi: 10.1007/s10865-021-00227-9 Epub 2021 May 5. ; PMCID: PMC9764232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.MyFitnessPal, Inc., 2024. Austin, Texas. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Johansson L, Solvoll K, Bjørneboe GE, Drevon C. Under- and overreporting of energy intake related to weight status and lifestyle in a nationwide sample. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998. Aug;68(2):266–74. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/68.2.266 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ravelli M, Schoeller D. Traditional self-reported dietary instruments are prone to enaccuracies and new approaches are needed. Front Nutr. 2020. Jul 3;7:90. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2020.00090 ; PMCID: PMC7350526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Streeper N, Lehman K, Conroy D. Acceptability of mobile health technology for promoting fluid consumption in patients with nephrolithiasis. Urology. 2018. Dec;122:64–69. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.020 Epub 2018 Aug 29. ; PMCID: PMC6295237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Conroy D, West A, Brunke-Reese D, Thomaz E, Streeper N. Just-in-time adaptive intervention to promote fluid consumption in patients with kidney stones. Health Psychol. 2020. Dec;39(12):1062–1069. doi: 10.1037/hea0001032 ; PMCID: PMC7903875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fitbit LLC, 2024. San Francisco, California.
  • 25.Beddoe A, Burgess R, Carp L, Foster J, Fox A, Moran L, et al. Disruptabottle: Encouraging hydration with an overflowing bottle. 2020. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. 10.1145/3334480.3382959 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cohen R, Fernie G, Roshan Fekr A. Monitoring fluid intake by commercially available smart water bottles. Sci Rep. 2022. Mar 15;12(1):4402. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08335-5 ; PMCID: PMC8924188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009. a Apr 42(2):377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Harris P, Taylor R, Minor B, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019. b May 9 doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Armstrong L, Muñoz C, Armstrong E. Distinguishing Low and High Water Consumers-A Paradigm of Disease Risk. Nutrients. 2020. Mar 23;12(3):858. doi: 10.3390/nu12030858 ; PMCID: PMC7146321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.IBM, 2024. Armonk, New York. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.McCauley L, Dyer A, Stern K, Hicks T, Nguyen M. Factors influencing fluid intake behavior among kidney stone formers. J Urol. 2012. Apr;187(4):1282–6. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.111 Epub 2012 Feb 15. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Song Y, Zhang F, Lin G, Wang X, He L, Li Y, et al. A study of the fluid intake, hydration status, and health effects among pregnant women in their second trimester in China: A cross-sectional study. Nutrients. 2023. Apr 2;15(7):1739. doi: 10.3390/nu15071739 ; PMCID: PMC10096982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Chun K, Sanders A, Adaimi R, Streeper N, Conroy D, Thomaz E. Towards a generalizable method for detecting fluid intake with wrist-mounted sensors and adaptive segmentation. IUI. 2019. Mar;2019:80–85. doi: 10.1145/3301275.3302315 ; PMCID: PMC6485933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Huang H, Hsieh C, Liu K, Hsu S, Chan C. Fluid intake monitoring system using a wearable inertial sensor for fluid intake management. Sensors (Basel). 2020. Nov 22;20(22):6682. doi: 10.3390/s20226682 ; PMCID: PMC7700234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zhang N, Zhang F, Chen S, Han F, Lin G, Zhai Y, et al. Associations between hydration state and pregnancy complications, maternal-infant outcomes: protocol of a prospective observational cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020. Feb 7;20(1):82. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-2765-x ; PMCID: PMC7006388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Duffy J, Wu E, Fong A, Garite T, Shrivastava V. A double-blinded randomized controlled trial on the effects of increased intravenous hydration in nulliparas undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022. Aug;227(2):269.e1–269.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.01.024 Epub 2022 Jan 31. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Brooks D, Douglas M, Aggarwal N, Prabhakaran S, Holden K, Mack D. Developing a framework for integrating health equity into the learning health system. Learn Health Syst. 2017. Jul;1(3):e10029. doi: 10.1002/lrh2.10029 Epub 2017 Jun 26. Erratum in: Learn Health Syst. 2017 Oct 17;1(4):e10043. PMCID: PMC6173483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Digit Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000499.r001

Decision Letter 0

Haleh Ayatollahi

17 Jul 2023

PDIG-D-23-00237

Every Sip Counts: Understanding hydration behaviors and user-acceptability of digital tools to promote adequate intake during pregnancy

PLOS Digital Health

Dear Dr. Pauley,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Digital Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Digital Health's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Sep 15 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at digitalhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pdig/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Haleh Ayatollahi

Section Editor

PLOS Digital Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please send a completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with twhe statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"

2. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

b. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that "The data can be accessed through contacting the corresponding author". All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will then be in touch if there are any issues.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript was interesting. Please address the following comments in your revision.

1- Please follow the journal instructions for manuscript preparation. I assume the abstract should be unstructured.

2- Please add appropriate keywords (preferably selected based on the MeSH terms) after the abstract.

3- Please use appropriate subheadings in your methods section (study design, research participants, research instrument, data collection and analysis, etc.) to organize and improve readability of this section.

4- Please add the questionnaire as an Appendix.

5- Please ensure that the data for all questions have been presented in the results section either via Table or Figure.

6- References older than 10 years ago need to be updated.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

--------------------

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

--------------------

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Digital Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

--------------------

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: For this journal, it is not allowed to have only one person as the corresponding author for your data. In the future, if you are not allowed to share your data in a de-identified fashion, you should put the ethics committee that oversees data sharing. Please refer to the guidelines for PLoS Digital Health here that might be helpful for future submissions: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/s/data-availability You can then update your data availability statement with the committee that oversees data sharing up at University Park.

Also, in the introduction, you cited a Chinese study, but the majority of your respondents are white. You might want to put that article in the discussion section if you are aiming to broaden your reach for future research.

Do not use contractions unless you are capturing responses from your participants, as it is considered not scholarly.

This article is probably a better fit for International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity or Journal of Nutrition.

Reviewer #2: Interesting paper! I have a few comments and suggestion on how to improve the paper.

Comments to PDIG-D-23-00237

Line 87: Is it in the guidelines that pregnant women are encouraged to “track their water intake”? Please show me a reference.

Line 88: “New mothers” – do you mean first time being pregnant? Or first time giving birth? Please show me a reference for the statement on greater risk for maternal and infant mortality when not hydrating enough.

Line 94: I don’t understand what is written in the parathesis: N=300, 42% - is 42% 300 people, or is it 42% of the 300 people? The same for the next line on 14%

Line 99: Please use L or ounces throughout the text. I prefer L.

Line 106: 81 ounces – see previous comment

Line 107: MyFitnessPal app – I need a reference, or a more explanation for what this is and where it was produced.

Line 117: Is it possible to have a picture of a “smart water bottle”? I have never seen one.

Line 123: What is a “Just-in-time adaptive intervention”? Could you please elaborate?

Line 129: I do not understand why anyone want a bottle that overflows when the consumer has consumed enough if you want to increase water intake? If I had a bottle like that, I would just stop drinking to avoid the overflow??

Line 148-150: Why do women in later pregnancy have a decreased knowledge of hydration recommendation?

Line 153: You recruited for more than 1 year. Why did you only include 137? It seems like you have tried to reach out in many ways, but why did you end up with such small and monotonous sample size?

Line 163: What if you want to choose exactly 81 ounces?

Line 168: Do the pregnant women who answers this survey know what “food with high water content” is? Are there mentioned examples in the survey?

Line 199: Why was the survey for 6 months? So the women could change their answers? Or? Why was this needed?

Line 202: Why did so few complete the survey? Was it very long? Who was it difficult to complete for? How did they differ from those who was included?

Line 211: 8ounces or 81ounces?

Line 216: Is “preferred choice of beverage” referred to want they drink the most or what the like the most? In my opinion it could be misunderstood?

Line 223: The sentence ends with “and” – what did you want to say more?

Figure 1a to Figure 1d (Line 224 and forth): What is the purpose of asking the same question in 4 different ways?

Line 273: If you want to state that “pregnant women may benefit from useful strategies to increase knowledge…”, I think, you need to show that those who did track their fluid intake, had a higher fluid intake than those who did not.

Line 276: So you did investigate for a pattern in the answers? Those who did not meet hydration recommendation where they also those who did not know the hydration recommendation and did not track their fluid intake and so forth? Or? Please state this in the method section and mention in the result section.

Line 281: I do not see how your results “suggest there is a gap between women’s knowledge and their actual hydration behaviors” if the sentence before should be the reason for this statement. In the sentence before you present that pregnant women do not feel thirsty or forgot to drink and also that they drink water throughout the day – nothing about knowledge??

Line 284-285: Please put in a reference

Line 289: Fitbit – please give a reference (company, country, year)

Line 302: “wrist-worn sensors” – why did you not include this in the survey if you know it exists?

Line 321: Nice discussion of limitations of the study!

Additional: Did you compare answers of the survey and patient characteristics? Did you find any pattern when examining this? Maybe this could improve the planning of future studies within this field?

Reviewer #3: Every Sip Counts: Understanding hydration behaviors and user-acceptability of digital tools to promote adequate intake during pregnancy

I congratulate the author for this innovative study. The author attempted a new aspect regarding hydration during pregnancy; the assessment of participants knowledge of recommendations and the use of digital tools to increase water intake. Moreover, the author has taken care of handling missed data. The abstract is written in the way it gives useful information for the paper.

Introduction

I appreciate how the introduction discuss previous evidence related to both hydration behavior and use of digital tools to track water intake among pregnant women. Searched evidences informed the gap in the field which make clear the problem the author wants to address and the rationale behind.

The author emphasizes (L147-150) on the difference in knowledge of hydration recommendations and willingness of using digital tool according to the age of pregnancy. However, this is not reflected in the title.

Materials and methods

• L153: To avoid a possible confusion, I was wondering if it is not wise to fully write OB/GYN even if it is known what it stands for. Why flyers were not also posted in antenatal care facilities where majority of pregnant women frequently visit in? I assume that OB/GYN clinics are rarely visited and especially for a serious issue or a referral case.

• L154: It not clearly shown how participant were screened against eligibility criteria. I would also like to know if an interested participant had to request for the link to access the online survey.

• The study setting is not defined. Was the study conducted in a particular community?

• L156-157: I think that a participating woman was not aware of the $50 gift card before otherwise it could be a source of bias.

• I think it would be good idea to ask question about types of apps used to track water intake because different apps may have different effect on participants acceptability; some may be more acceptable than others.

• Nothing is mentioned concerning informing to participants about the study and getting their consent.

• Why was the survey remained opened for exactly 6 months? any particular reason/explanation for that?

• I would be better to state how data were managed for analysis to ease the reader understanding.

Results

• Table 1 describing participant demographics of pregnant women shows that two women were retired and I doubt that a woman can be pregnant when she has reached an age of retirement…

• L211: a typo “8ounces”

• Table two show that only 7 (5%) participants were using a tracking app what seems to be in contrast with what is reported concerning interest in use of new app (L247-252)

Discussion

• L271: I hope it is an assumption that most women own a smartphone or a tablet/computer. I have not seen it in the results

• I recommend the author to search more other evidences to discuss his findings on the two aspects; knowledge and use of digital tools in tracking water intake.

Conclusion

• The manuscript describes hydration behaviors and user-acceptability of digital tools to promote adequate intake during pregnancy.

• The result section is heavy reporting much data. The author should report key findings to guide the conclusion

Congratulations to the authors and happy to read an improved version in the near future!

--------------------

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our <a href="https://www.plos.org/privacy

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to PDIG-D-23-00237.docx

pdig.0000499.s002.docx (14.9KB, docx)
PLOS Digit Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000499.r003

Decision Letter 1

Haleh Ayatollahi

14 Dec 2023

PDIG-D-23-00237R1

Every Sip Counts: Understanding hydration behaviors and user-acceptability of digital tools to promote adequate intake during early and late pregnancy

PLOS Digital Health

Dear Dr. Pauley,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Digital Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Digital Health's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Feb 12 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at digitalhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pdig/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Haleh Ayatollahi

Section Editor

PLOS Digital Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure that all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/s/figures

https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

2. Please insert an Ethics Statement at the beginning of your Methods section, under a subheading 'Ethics Statement'. It must include:

1) The name(s) of the Institutional Review Board(s) or Ethics Committee(s)

2) The approval number(s), or a statement that approval was granted by the named board(s)

3) (for human participants/donors) - A statement that formal consent was obtained (must state whether verbal/written) OR the reason consent was not obtained (e.g. anonymity). NOTE: If child participants, the statement must declare that formal consent was obtained from the parent/guardian.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

--------------------

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

--------------------

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

--------------------

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

--------------------

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Digital Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

--------------------

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: Overall, this study attempts to determine whether women understand hydration behaviors and evaluate their user-acceptability of digital tools to promote adequate intake during pregnancy. I commend the authors for undertaking this unique and interesting topic. However, there are some major issues that should be addressed.

1. Line 162, 163: The survey provided an open answer question “Do you know how much water you should be drinking in a day (in ounces?)”, and the answer was dichotomized into less than 81 ounces and greater than 81 ounces. While this serves as a proxy of the water consumption adequacy, the authors should justify why this cutoff was chosen, since recommended water intake is largely based on other metrics including age, BMI, , activity level, comorbidities..etc. The recommended water intake amount during pregnancy according to ACOG on their official site 8 to 12 cups (64 to 96 ounces) (https://www.acog.org/womens-health/experts-and-stories/ask-acog/how-much-water-should-i-drink-during-pregnancy )

2. The citations listed on line 106 regarding the recommended amount of water intake: meet the hydration guidelines of consuming at least 81 ounces of water from ~8-36 weeks’ gestation [15,16]. Both articles did not explicitly state “81 ounces” as the recommended amount of water intake, other citations for justifying the “81 ounce” should be provided.

3. The completion rate of surveys was 34%. Could the authors specify the predominant channel of recruitment for those who completed the survey (patients who were included in the analysis)? Understanding the behavioral profile of participants sourced through diverse platforms such as social media, community flyers, OB/GYN clinics, and University websites could offer nuanced insights.

4. The tables presented in the manuscript are mostly descriptive data. But regarding the statistics of comparing between early and late pregnancy, only 137 samples were analyzed between 2 groups (early vs late), yet the authors chose One-way ANOVA: a parametric test which is used for 3 or more groups for the analysis. It is unlikely that the numbers from the small sample size would be normally distributed. I recommend re-doing the analysis with a non-parametric test for 2 groups (Wilcoxon rank sum test). Moreover, considering the binary nature of most survey items (yes/no), shouldn't the chi-squared test be apt for comparing categorical variables across groups? The omission of this in the methodology is confusing.

Reviewer #5: Some minor errors still need to be corrected: lack of close parenthesis in line 82, and in-text citation formatting in lines 291 and 292. Please follow PLOS guidelines for the citation format.

--------------------

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Arianne Justine T. Obeles, MD

--------------------

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Digit Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000499.r005

Decision Letter 2

Haleh Ayatollahi

29 Mar 2024

Every Sip Counts: Understanding hydration behaviors and user-acceptability of digital tools to promote adequate intake during early and late pregnancy

PDIG-D-23-00237R2

Dear Ms Pauley,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Every Sip Counts: Understanding hydration behaviors and user-acceptability of digital tools to promote adequate intake during early and late pregnancy' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Digital Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact digitalhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Digital Health.

Best regards,

Haleh Ayatollahi

Section Editor

PLOS Digital Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Digital Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #6: Partly

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #6: N/A

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Digital Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #6: The revised manuscript has addressed all the comments and can be a suitable research for highlighting the significance of proper hydration during pregnancy. Although the significance of digital methods has not been found more significant towards the hydartion habit, but using specific digital tools for implementing hydartion practice during pregnancy could atleast make the women aware about the importance of drinking water during those critical time period and prevent the possibilities for occurrence of the abnormalities in the baby and complications during the delivery.

Reviewer #7: Thank you for a very interesting research and manuscript. Going forward, a multilingual tool would be beneficial to be able to reach a more diverse population.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes: 

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Questionnaire. Demographics & health history.

    (DOCX)

    pdig.0000499.s001.docx (38.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments to PDIG-D-23-00237.docx

    pdig.0000499.s002.docx (14.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Author Reply to Reviewer Comments 15September2023.docx

    pdig.0000499.s003.docx (38KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Author Reply to Reviewer Comments 12February2024.docx

    pdig.0000499.s004.docx (31KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because the data collected on human subjects was not IRB approved to be shared publicly. Also, since it is human subjects data, a data transfer agreement is needed. Data are available from the Pennsylvania State University Office for Research Protections at orp@psu.edu or 814-865-1775 for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLOS Digital Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES