ArticleAJOG global reports2025
Obstetricians' experiences with remote monitoring programs for hypertensive disorders.
Article in AJOG global reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Despite widespread use in primary care, remote patient monitoring (RPM) in obstetrics for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy remain limited. Little is known about the specific modalities, perceived impact, and integration of RPM into standard practice in obstetrics. Objective: To explore obstetricians' experiences with RPM for hypertensive disorders in the perinatal period and barriers in implementation, and to identify promising practices to overcome these barriers. Study Design: This qualitative study, conducted from September to October 2024, involved semi-structured interviews with 20 obstetricians across the United States, who represented different practice settings and RPM program models. We developed a qualitative codebook and conducted thematic analysis informed by the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Results: Five key themes emerged from interviews: (1) Barriers to Engagement; (2) Perceptions of Clinical Benefit; (3) Financial Hurdles in RPM Utilization; (4) Navigating Workflow and Data Challenges; and (5) Liability Concerns in RPM. RPM programs varied substantially in their eligibility criteria, timing within the perinatal period, data transfer methods, staffing models, and workflow. The major barriers included financial constraints (eg, insurance coverage and equipment costs), complex workflows, liability concerns related to 24/7 monitoring and response, and patient-level barriers (eg, technology literacy, language, and anxiety). Obstetricians used several strategies to overcome these challenges, including having patients bring their cuffs to the office to validate accuracy, assigning dedicated staff or partnering with a vendor to streamline workflows, coupling RPM with additional services like pregnancy education to improve adherence, and training staff so not all issues (eg, medication titration) require escalation to obstetricians. Despite the challenges, participants generally valued RPM and observed benefits in both clinical outcomes and patient engagement. Conclusion: These findings highlight the need for context-specific approaches to enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of RPM for managing hypertensive disorders in the perinatal period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.