Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun 22;12(13):4224.
doi: 10.3390/jcm12134224.

Feasibility and Acceptance of Self-Guided Mobile Ultrasound among Pregnant Women in Routine Prenatal Care

Constanza A Pontones  1 , Adriana Titzmann  1 , Hanna Huebner  1 , Nina Danzberger  1 , Matthias Ruebner  1 , Lothar Häberle  1 , Bjoern M Eskofier  2 , Michael Nissen  2 , Sven Kehl  1 , Florian Faschingbauer  1 , Matthias W Beckmann  1 , Peter A Fasching  1 , Michael O Schneider  1
Affiliations

Feasibility and Acceptance of Self-Guided Mobile Ultrasound among Pregnant Women in Routine Prenatal Care

Constanza A Pontones et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background and objectives: Mobile and remote ultrasound devices are becoming increasingly available. The benefits and possible risks of self-guided ultrasound examinations conducted by pregnant women at home have not yet been well explored. This study investigated aspects of feasibility and acceptance, as well as the success rates of such examinations.

Methods: In this prospective, single-center, interventional study, forty-six women with singleton pregnancies between 17 + 0 and 29 + 6 weeks of gestation were included in two cohorts, using two different mobile ultrasound systems. The participants examined the fetal heartbeat, fetal profile and amniotic fluid. Aspects of feasibility and acceptance were evaluated using a questionnaire. Success rates in relation to image and video quality were evaluated by healthcare professionals.

Results: Two thirds of the women were able to imagine performing the self-guided examination at home, but 87.0% would prefer live support by a professional. Concerns about their own safety and that of the child were expressed by 23.9% of the women. Success rates for locating the target structure were 52.2% for videos of the fetal heartbeat, 52.2% for videos of the amniotic fluid in all four quadrants and 17.9% for videos of the fetal profile.

Conclusion: These results show wide acceptance of self-examination using mobile systems for fetal ultrasonography during pregnancy. Image quality was adequate for assessing the amniotic fluid and fetal heartbeat in most participants. Further studies are needed to determine whether ultrasound self-examinations can be implemented in prenatal care and how this would affect the fetomaternal outcome.

Keywords: acceptance; feasibility; mobile ultrasound; pregnancy; prenatal care; self-guided ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Requirements for satisfactory presentation of fetal profile: the forehead, tip of the nose and chin should be clearly visible.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Example of an image obtained by a study participant in cohort A, showing the heartbeat (satisfactory presentation). (b) Example of an image obtained by a study participant in cohort B, showing the heartbeat (satisfactory presentation).
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) Example of an image obtained by a study participant in cohort A, showing the amniotic fluid (satisfactory presentation). (b) Example of an image obtained by a study participant in cohort B, showing the amniotic fluid (satisfactory presentation).
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) Example of an image obtained by a study participant in cohort A, showing the amniotic fluid (satisfactory presentation). (b) Example of an image obtained by a study participant in cohort B, showing the amniotic fluid (satisfactory presentation).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Example of an image obtained by a study participant, showing the fetal profile (satisfactory presentation).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Salomon L., Alfirevic Z., Da Silva Costa F., Deter R., Figueras F., Ghi T., Glanc P., Khalil A., Lee W., Napolitano R., et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: Ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2019;53:715–723. doi: 10.1002/uog.20272. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tolsgaard M.G. Assessment and learning of ultrasound skills in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Dan. Med. J. 2018;65:B5445. - PubMed
    1. Gyselaers W., Lanssens D., Perry H., Khalil A. Mobile Health Applications for Prenatal Assessment and Monitoring. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2019;25:615–623. doi: 10.2174/1381612825666190320140659. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Weichert J., Welp A., Scharf J.L., Dracopoulos C., Becker W.H., Gembicki M. The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Automation in the Fields of Gynaecology and Obstetrics—An Assessment of the State of Play. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2021;81:1203–1216. doi: 10.1055/a-1522-3029. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Peahl A.F., Smith R.D., Moniz M.H. Prenatal care redesign: Creating flexible maternity care models through virtual care. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020;223:389.e1–389.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.029. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources