![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective: Continuous longer-term fetal monitoring has been proposed to address limitations of current technologies in the detection of fetal compromise. We aimed to assess professionals' views regarding current fetal-monitoring techniques and proposed longer-term continuous fetal monitoring.
Methods: A questionnaire was designed and validated to assess obstetricians' and midwives' use of current fetal-monitoring techniques and their views towards continuous monitoring. 125 of 173 received responses (72% obstetricians, 28% midwives) were analysed.
Results: Professionals had the strongest views about supporting evidence for the most commonly employed fetal-monitoring techniques (maternal awareness of fetal movements, ultrasound assessment of fetal growth and umbilical artery Doppler). 45.1% of professionals agreed that a continuous monitoring device would be beneficial (versus 28.7% who disagreed); this perceived benefit was not influenced by professionals' views regarding current techniques or professional background. Professionals have limited experience of continuous fetal monitoring, but most respondents believed that it would increase maternal anxiety (64.3%) and would have concerns with its use in clinical practice (81.7%).
Conclusion: Continuous fetal monitoring would be acceptable to the majority of professionals. However, development of these technologies must be accompanied by extended examination of professionals' and women's views to determine barriers to its introduction.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank professionals who reviewed the questionnaire during its development.
Declaration of interest
Dr Edward Johnstone and Dr Alexander Heazell are co-investigators on a project to develop non-invasive long-term fetal monitoring in high-risk pregnancies. This has been funded by Manchester: Integrating Medicine and Innovative Technology, Tommy's – the baby charity and a grant from The University of Manchester EPSRC IAA Concept and Feasibility Study Fund. The authors do not have any personal financial conflicts of interest to report in relation to this manuscript. This study was funded by the Holly Martin Stillbirth Research Fund.
Supplementary material available online