Abstract
User engagement with remote blood pressure monitoring during pregnancy is critical to optimize the associated benefits of blood pressure control and early detection of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. In our study population of pregnant individuals, we found that connected blood pressure cuffs, which automatically sync measures to a monitoring platform or health record, increase engagement (2.13 [95% CI 1.36‐3.35] times more measures per day) with remote blood pressure monitoring compared to unconnected cuffs that require manual entry of measures.
Introduction
Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy affect 5%‐10% of pregnancies and increase the risk of adverse pregnancy and postpartum outcomes [1,2]. Typically, management of these disorders involves blood pressure (BP) monitoring and initiation of antihypertensive therapy. Remote BP monitoring (RBPM) enables at-home BP monitoring to inform clinical decision-making in a timely manner [2-4]. Previous studies have shown that RBPM facilitates earlier detection of elevated BP and reduces prenatal hospitalizations and clinic visits [2,3]. Despite studies establishing feasibility and patient acceptability of RBPM [4-9], best practices for integrating RBPM within prenatal care have not yet been established. One open question is whether connected BP cuffs, which automatically sync measures to a health record, improve data quality and frequency over standard BP cuffs, which require users to manually enter measures [3-8]. The goal of this study was to compare user engagement with RBPM between connected and unconnected BP devices among users of a pregnancy care platform.
Methods
Study Population
The study population consisted of pregnant individuals enrolled in Delfina Care [10], a comprehensive pregnancy care platform, at a community practice in Texas, USA, between January and July 2023. Initially, these users were provided with unconnected BP devices at their provider’s discretion, with a recommendation to record 2 BP measures a day per internal expert clinical consensus. Connected devices were introduced in April 2023 as part of a quality improvement initiative. Differences in user experiences between the connected and unconnected device groups are further described in Multimedia Appendix 1.
The outcome of interest was user engagement, defined as the number of daily BP measures taken, and as a binary indicator of completing the daily recommended BP measures (ie, 2 distinct BP measures per day). Analogous engagement outcomes at the weekly level were also reported. To avoid inflated differences due to repeated measures from connected device users, we considered multiple entries within 1 hour as a single measurement (Multimedia Appendix 2). The exposure of interest was receiving a connected versus unconnected device. Clinical and demographic characteristics were collated from user-reported questionnaire data and electronic health records.
Statistical Analysis
Poisson and logistic regressions were fit for the daily number of BP measures and ≥2 daily BP measures, respectively. Both models controlled for relevant confounders (ie, age, parity, weeks since enrollment, primary clinic, and preferred language) and included a random effect for users across enrollment days.
Ethical Considerations
The study team received an institutional review board exemption waiver of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) authorization on August 22, 2022, from WIRB-Copernicus Group (WCG) Institutional Review Board (protocol number 202208‐001).
Results
During the study period, 164 users with BP cuffs were enrolled in the Delfina Care platform. Restricting to those with covariate data, the analytic sample consisted of 163 users (97 unconnected device users and 66 connected device users). Users with connected devices had more mean BP measure entries per day (0.51 vs 0.32) and a higher proportion completed the recommended ≥2 daily BP measures (12% vs 7%) compared to users with unconnected devices (Table 1). At the weekly level, the mean entries per week (3.37 vs 2.07) and the proportion of users who completed the recommended ≥1 weekly BP measure (63% vs 47%) were higher for connected users than for unconnected device users (Table 1).
Table 1. Study population characteristics.
| Characteristics | Overall (n=163) | Unconnected device users (n=97) | Connected device users (n=66) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years, mean (SD) | 28.73 (6.02) | 28.71 (5.61) | 28.76 (6.61) | .96 |
| Language, n (%) | .32 | |||
| English | 139 (85.3) | 80 (82.5) | 59 (89.4) | |
| Spanish | 24 (14.7) | 17 (17.5) | 7 (10.6) | |
| Parity, mean (SD) | 1.37 (1.44) | 1.36 (1.32) | 1.38 (1.60) | .99 |
| Primary clinic, n (%) | .07 | |||
| A | 35 (21.5) | 20 (20.6) | 15 (22.7) | |
| B | 71 (43.6) | 49 (50.5) | 22 (33.3) | |
| C | 57 (35.0) | 28 (28.9) | 29 (43.9) | |
| User engagementa, mean (SD) | ||||
| Weekly entries | 2.59 (3.02) | 2.07 (2.78) | 3.37 (3.20) | .007 |
| Daily entries | 0.40 (0.46) | 0.32 (0.42) | 0.51 (0.49) | .008 |
| Proportion ≥1 weekly entries | 0.53 (0.35) | 0.47 (0.35) | 0.63 (0.33) | .003 |
| Proportion ≥2 daily entries | 0.09 (0.17) | 0.07 (0.15) | 0.12 (0.19) | .048 |
User engagement metrics were first averaged within a user and then averaged across users for each device type and overall.
Adjusting for confounders, users with connected devices had 2.13 (95% CI 1.36‐3.35) times more measures per day and 5.62 (95% CI 2.28‐13.83) times the odds of meeting the recommendation of ≥2 daily BP measures than unconnected device users (Table 2).
Table 2. Effect estimates and 95% CIs by outcome model.
| Number of BP measures per day | Completed ≥2 BP measures per day | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictors | Incidence rate ratio | 95% CI | Odds ratio | 95% CI |
| Connected versus unconnected device | 2.13 | 1.36‐3.35 | 5.62 | 2.28‐13.83 |
| Age (years) | 1.06 | 1.02‐1.11 | 1.11 | 1.03‐1.20 |
| Weeks since enrollment | 0.97 | 0.97‐0.98 | 1.00 | 0.98‐1.01 |
| English vs Spanish language | 1.25 | 0.66‐2.35 | 0.72 | 0.22‐2.38 |
| Parity (number of live births) | 0.88 | 0.74‐1.05 | 0.79 | 0.57‐1.10 |
| Clinic B vs A | 1.44 | 0.79‐2.61 | 4.18 | 1.25‐14.03 |
| Clinic C vs A | 1.54 | 0.83‐2.86 | 4.06 | 1.16‐14.20 |
Discussion
We observed user engagement with RBPM was significantly higher among those with connected devices than those with unconnected devices. Previous studies among pregnant individuals have shown that the recommended frequency of BP measures ranges from several times daily to once weekly [4,7,8,11]. In our cohort, the proportion of users meeting the twice-daily recommendation was low, but the majority of users completed the once-weekly entry at least, and connected device users still had higher utilization than unconnected device users (63% vs 47%; P=.003). Compared to in-clinic BP measures, all users had a higher average number of weekly readings than the in-clinic average (2.59 vs 0.50 BP readings/week). Our study corroborated the feasibility of at-home RBPM during pregnancy and highlights the potential advantages of device connectivity on user engagement.
Limitations
Our findings are limited by the lack of true randomization to device types, which we addressed by controlling for potential confounders. We also addressed potential time-related confounding via a sensitivity analysis with no change in findings (Multimedia Appendix 2).
Conclusion
This study highlights how connected BP devices can improve patient engagement to RBPM during the prenatal period. Other aspects of RBPM, such as recommended frequency and patient education, should be further investigated to ensure users are able to successfully engage with monitoring technologies.
Supplementary material
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by grant funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) under grant number R43HD114360.
Abbreviations
- BP
blood pressure
- HIPAA
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
- NICHD
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- RBPM
remote blood pressure monitoring
- WCG
WIRB-Copernicus Group
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest: MC reports serving as a data science consultant for Delfina, Inc. TW reports serving as the associate chief medical officer for Delfina, Inc. BZ reports serving as the chief medical officer for Delfina, Inc. PV reports serving as the chief product officer for Delfina, Inc. IF reports serving as the chief scientific officer for Delfina, Inc
References
- 1.Hutcheon JA, Lisonkova S, Joseph KS. Epidemiology of pre-eclampsia and the other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2011 Aug;25(4):391–403. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2011.01.006. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Nathan HL, Duhig K, Hezelgrave NL, Chappell LC, Shennan AH. Blood pressure measurement in pregnancy. Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 Apr;17(2):91–98. doi: 10.1111/tog.12173. doi. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Yeh PT, Rhee DK, Kennedy CE, et al. Self-monitoring of blood pressure among women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 May 31;22(1):454. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04751-7. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Aquino M, Munce S, Griffith J, Pakosh M, Munnery M, Seto E. Exploring the use of telemonitoring for patients at high risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the antepartum and postpartum periods: scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Apr 17;8(4):e15095. doi: 10.2196/15095. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.van den Heuvel JFM, Kariman SS, van Solinge WW, Franx A, Lely AT, Bekker MN. SAFE@HOME - feasibility study of a telemonitoring platform combining blood pressure and preeclampsia symptoms in pregnancy care. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Sep;240:226–231. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.012. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Marko KI, Krapf JM, Meltzer AC, et al. Testing the feasibility of remote patient monitoring in prenatal care using a mobile app and connected devices: a prospective observational trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Nov 18;5(4):e200. doi: 10.2196/resprot.6167. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Tucker KL, Taylor KS, Crawford C, et al. Blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy: examining feasibility in a prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Dec 28;17(1):442. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1605-0. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Runkle JD, Sugg MM, McCrory S, Coulson CC. Examining the feasibility of smart blood pressure home monitoring: advancing remote prenatal care in rural Appalachia. Telemed Rep. 2021;2(1):125–134. doi: 10.1089/tmr.2020.0021. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Khalil A, Perry H, Lanssens D, Gyselaers W. Telemonitoring for hypertensive disease in pregnancy. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019 Aug;16(8):653–661. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2019.1640116. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Delfina - intelligent pregnancy care for all. [28-06-2024]. https://www.delfina.com/ URL. Accessed.
- 11.Chappell LC, Tucker KL, Galal U, et al. Effect of self-monitoring of blood pressure on blood pressure control in pregnant individuals with chronic or gestational hypertension: the BUMP 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022 May 3;327(17):1666–1678. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4726. doi. Medline. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
