Back

Understanding digital health use among postpartum women in Alberta, Canada: a qualitative focus group study

Kurkova, V.; Modanloo, S.; Wu, Y.; Tian, J.; Desnoyers, E.; Adu, M. K.; Wong, G.; Greenshaw, A.; Hayward, J.

2026-04-28 obstetrics and gynecology
10.64898/2026.04.26.26351785 medRxiv
Show abstract

The postpartum period involves profound physical, emotional, and social changes, yet many women report fragmented, infant-centered care that leaves their own needs insufficiently addressed. Digital health tools, including mobile apps, wearables, telehealth, and online resources, are increasingly used by postpartum women to seek information, support, and reassurance; however, little is known about how women experience these tools in their everyday lives. This qualitative study employed thematic analysis to explore the perspectives of postpartum women on digital health. Postpartum women ([≤]12 months after birth) living in Alberta, Canada, were recruited through maternity clinics and targeted social media advertisements. Four virtual focus groups (4-6 participants in each; 18 participants overall) were conducted via Zoom using a semi-structured guide on postpartum healthcare experiences, use of digital tools (apps, wearables, telehealth, AI), and perceived barriers and facilitators to adoption. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by multiple researchers. Thematic analysis identified 32 codes, organized into 12 subthemes and four overarching themes: navigating postpartum support networks; empowerment through digital health tools; conditions for acceptable digital health design; and when technology feels like a burden. Women appreciated multiple sources of support from midwives, public health nurses, peers, and online communities, but described care that quickly became infant-focused, leaving their own recovery and mental health under-addressed, particularly in rural settings. Digital tools helped mothers structure infant and self-care, track symptoms, and prepare for appointments, yet also created new forms of burden, including information overload, usability challenges, privacy concerns, and feelings of surveillance or pressure to perform. Participants emphasized personalization (flexible notifications, mother-focused content), embedded mental health support, integration with trusted providers, and co-designed, credible platforms endorsed by Canadian health systems. Overall, to be acceptable and effective, tools must center mothers needs and be embedded within a broader ecosystem of responsive, continuous care. Author summaryBecoming a parent is a major life change, and many women feel that support from the health system drops off once the baby is born. At the same time, new mothers are increasingly turning to mobile phone apps, wearable devices, online groups, and video visits to answer questions, track health, and feel less alone. We wanted to understand women lived experience with these digital tools after giving birth: what feels helpful, what feels burdensome, and what they would want in an ideal tool. Our research team, consisting of three PhD students, held four online focus group discussions (4-6 participants per group; 18 participants overall) with women in Alberta, Canada, who had given birth within the past year. They described digital tools as both empowering and exhausting. Apps and wearables helped them track feeding, sleep, and symptoms, organize daily life, and come better prepared for medical appointments. At the same time, constant tracking, frequent notifications, and unclear data practices could feel overwhelming, guilt-inducing, or intrusive. This study is an important first step in a larger co-design work. By listening closely to mothers stories, we gathered practical ideas about what a supportive postpartum app should (and should not) do. In future phases, we plan to work directly with postpartum women and frontline clinicians to turn these ideas into a user-friendly, trustworthy digital tool that supports both mothers and babies health.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.3%
2
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.4%
3
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.3%
4
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
7
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.3%
8
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
9
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
10
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.9%
11
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.7%
12
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
13
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.6%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.5%
15
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
16
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
17
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
18
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
22
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
24
BMC Medical Education
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
25
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
26
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
27
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
28
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%