Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 294, Issue 5, pp 937–944 | Cite as

Pregnancy eHealth and mHealth: user proportions and characteristics of pregnant women using Web-based information sources—a cross-sectional study

  • Stephanie WallwienerEmail author
  • Mitho Müller
  • Anne Doster
  • Wolfgang Laserer
  • Corinna Reck
  • Jan Pauluschke-Fröhlich
  • Sara Y. Brucker
  • Christian W. Wallwiener
  • Markus Wallwiener
Maternal-Fetal Medicine



To analyze the current proportions and characteristics of women using Internet (eHealth) and smartphone (mHealth) based sources of information during pregnancy and to investigate the influence, this information-seeking behavior has on decision-making.


A cross-sectional study was conducted at two major German university hospitals. Questionnaires covering socio-demographic data, medical data and details of Internet, and smartphone application use were administered to 220 pregnant women. Data analysis utilized descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis.


50.7 % of pregnant women were online information seekers. 22.4 % used an mHealth pregnancy application. Women using eHealth information showed no specific profile, while women using mHealth applications proved to be younger, were more likely to be in their first pregnancy, felt less healthy, and were more likely to be influenced by the retrieved information. Stepwise backward regression analysis explained 25.8 % of the variance of mHealth use. 80.5 % of cases were classified correctly by the identified predictors. All types of Web-based information correlated significantly with decision-making during pregnancy.


Pregnant women frequently use the Internet and smartphone applications as a source of information. While Web usage was a common phenomenon, this study revealed specific characteristics of mHealth users during pregnancy. Improved, medically accurate smartphone applications might provide a way to specifically target the mHealth user group. As user influenceability was of major relevance to all types of information, all medical content should be carefully reviewed by a multidisciplinary board of medical specialists.


Pregnancy eHealth mHealth Smartphone application Internet Obstetrics 



Dr. Stephanie Wallwiener was financially supported by the German Society of Psychosomatic Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.


  1. 1.
    McCann AD, McCulloch JE (2012) Establishing an online and social media presence for your IBCLC practice. J Hum Lact 28(4):450–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Travel Commission (2012) New media trend watch.
  3. 3.
    Lima-Pereira P, Bermúdez-Tamayo C, Jasienska G (2012) Use of the Internet as a source of health information amongst participants of antenatal classes. J Clin Nurs 21(3–4):322–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lorence D, Park H (2006) Web-based consumer health information: public access, digital division, and remainders. MedGenMed 8(2):4PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bert F, Gualano MR, Brusaferro S, de Vito E, de Waure C, La Torre G, Manzoli L, Messina G, Todros T, Torregrossa MV, Siliquini R (2013) Pregnancy e-health: a multicenter Italian cross-sectional study on internet use and decision-making among pregnant women. J Epidemiol Commun Health 67(12):1013–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernhardt JM, Felter EM (2004) Online pediatric information seeking among mothers of young children: results from a qualitative study using focus groups. J Med Internet Res 6(1):e7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gao L, Larsson M, Luo S (2013) Internet use by Chinese women seeking pregnancy-related information. Midwifery 29(7):730–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson SA (2015) ‘Intimate mothering publics’: comparing face-to-face support groups and internet use for women seeking information and advice in the transition to first-time motherhood. Cult Health Sex 17(2):237–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tamrat T, Kachnowski S (2012) Special delivery: an analysis of mHealth in maternal and newborn health programs and their outcomes around the world. Matern Child Health J 16(5):1092–1101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Health Organization (2011) mHealth: new horizons for health through mobile technologies. Global Observatory for eHealth series. vol 3.
  11. 11.
    Bert F, Passi S, Scaioli G, Gualano MR, Siliquini R (2015) There comes a baby! What should I do? Smartphones’ pregnancy-related applications: a web-based overview. Health Inform J. doi: 10.1177/1460458215574120 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krieger T, Meyer B, Sude K, Urech A, Maercker A, Berger T (2014) Evaluating an e-mental health program (“deprexis”) as adjunctive treatment tool in psychotherapy for depression: design of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry 14:285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lupton D (2015) Health promotion in the digital era: a critical commentary. Health Promot Int 30(1):174–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lupton D, Jutel A (1982) ‘It’s like having a physician in your pocket!’ A critical analysis of self-diagnosis smartphone apps. Soc Sci Med 2015(133):128–135Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nyamtema AS, Urassa DP, van Roosmalen J (2011) Maternal health interventions in resource limited countries: a systematic review of packages, impacts and factors for change. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 11:30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mechael P, Nemser B, Cosmaciuc R, Cole-Lewis H, Ohemeng-Dapaah S, Dusabe S, Kaonga NN, Namakula P, Shemsanga M, Burbach R, Kanter AS (2012) Capitalizing on the characteristics of mHealth to evaluate its impact. J Health Commun 17(Suppl 1):62–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bert F, Giacometti M, Gualano MR, Siliquini R (2014) Smartphones and health promotion: a review of the evidence. J Med Syst 38(1):9995CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Bokun T, McKinstry B, Procter R, Majeed A, Sheikh A (2011) The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Med 8(1):e1000387CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Muñoz JA, Puyol JA, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA (2001) Health information on the internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA 285(20):2612–2621CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sinni SV, Cross WM, Swanson AE, Wallace EM (2016) Measuring pregnancy care: towards better maternal and child health. Austr N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 56(2):142–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alcayaga C, Pérez JC, Bustamante C, Campos S, Lange I, Zuñiga F (2014) Plan piloto del sistema de comunicación y seguimiento móvil en salud para personas con diabetes (Pilot plan for a mobile health communication and monitoring system for people with diabetes). Rev Panam Salud Pública (Pan Am J Public Health) 35(5–6):458–464Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rodrigues R, Bogg L, Shet A, Kumar DS, de Costa A (2014) Mobile phones to support adherence to antiretroviral therapy: what would it cost the Indian National AIDS Control Programme? J Int AIDS Soc 17:19036CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rezniczek GA, Küppers L, Heuer H, Hefler LA, Buerkle B, Tempfer CB (2015) Quality of websites of obstetrics and gynecology departments: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15(1):103CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jo Y, Labrique AB, Lefevre AE, Mehl G, Pfaff T, Walker N, Friberg IK (2014) Using the lives saved tool (LiST) to model mHealth impact on neonatal survival in resource-limited settings. PLoS One 9(7):e102224CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abroms LC, Johnson PR, Heminger CL, Van Alstyne JM, Leavitt LE, Schindler-Ruwisch JM, Bushar JA (2015) Quit4baby: results from a pilot test of a mobile smoking cessation program for pregnant women. JMIR mHealth uHealth 3(1):e10. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3846
  26. 26.
    BinDhim NF, Shaman AM, Trevena L, Basyouni MH, Pont LG, Alhawassi TM (2015) Depression screening via a smartphone app: cross-country user characteristics and feasibility. J Am Med Inform Assoc 22(1):29–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dunford E, Trevena H, Goodsell C, Ng KH, Webster J, Millis A, Goldstein S, Hugueniot O, Neal B (2014) FoodSwitch: a mobile phone app to enable consumers to make healthier food choices and crowdsourcing of national food composition data. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2(3):e37CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wallwiener M, Wallwiener CW, Kansy JK, Seeger H, Rajab TK (2009) Impact of electronic messaging on the patient–physician interaction. J Telemed Telecare 15(5):243–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bauer AM, Rue T, Keppel GA, Cole AM, Baldwin L, Katon W (2014) Use of mobile health (mHealth) tools by primary care patients in the WWAMI region practice and research network (WPRN). J Am Board Fam Med JABFM 27(6):780–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peragallo Urrutia R, Berger AA, Ivins AA, Beckham AJ, Thorp JM, Nicholson WK (2015) Internet use and access among pregnant women via computer and mobile phone: implications for delivery of perinatal care. JMIR mHealth uHealth 3(1):e25Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fayers PM, Sprangers MA, Mirjam AG (2002) Understanding self-rated health. Lancet 359(9302):187–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1997) Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage: University of St. Andrews. Centre for Research into Industry, Enterprise, and the Firm, CastlecliffeGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bortz J, Weber R (2005) Statistik: Für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Sechste, vollständig überarbeitete und aktualisierte Auflage. Springer, Berlin (ISBN 9783540264309)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    de Santis M, de Luca C, Quattrocchi T, Visconti D, Cesari E, Mappa I, Nobili E, Spagnuolo T, Caruso A (2010) Use of the internet by women seeking information about potentially teratogenic agents. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 151(2):154–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kraschnewski JL, Chuang CH, Poole ES, Peyton T, Blubaugh I, Pauli J, Feher A, Reddy M (2014) Paging, “Dr. Google”: does technology fill the gap created by the prenatal care visit structure? Qualitative focus group study with pregnant women. J Med Internet Res 16(6):e147CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lagan BM, Sinclair M, Kernohan WG (2010) Internet use in pregnancy informs women’s decision making: a web-based survey. Birth (Berkeley, Calif) 37(2):106–115Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnson SA (2014) Maternal devices”, social media and the self-management of pregnancy, mothering and child health. Societies 4:330–350. doi: 10.3390/soc4020330
  38. 38.
    Palosse-Cantaloube L, Lacroix I, Rousseau V, Bagheri H, Montastruc J, Damase-Michel C (2014) Analysis of chats on French internet forums about drugs and pregnancy. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 23(12):1330–1333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Teoli DA, Zullig KJ, Hendryx MS (2015) Maternal fair/poor self-rated health and adverse infant birth outcomes. Health Care Women Int 36(1):108–120. doi: 10.1080/07399332.2013.862796 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morgan KJ, Eastwood JG (2014) Social determinants of maternal self-rated health in South Western Sydney, Australia. BMC Res Notes 7:51CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Wallwiener
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mitho Müller
    • 2
  • Anne Doster
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Laserer
    • 1
  • Corinna Reck
    • 2
  • Jan Pauluschke-Fröhlich
    • 3
  • Sara Y. Brucker
    • 3
  • Christian W. Wallwiener
    • 3
  • Markus Wallwiener
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyLudwig Maximilian UniversityMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of Women’s HealthUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations