Accessibility settings

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Formative Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions (5146) Consumer & Patient Education and Shared-Decision Making (1278) Qualitative Methods (244) Consumer Education and Learning for Mental Health (39) Consumer Health Informatics Innovations (48)

Published on in Vol 10 (2026)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/98438, first published .
Pregnant Asian woman relaxing on couch, using tablet

Consumer and Health Care Professional Perspectives on a Digital Platform to Support Preventive Antenatal Care: Qualitative Descriptive Study

Consumer and Health Care Professional Perspectives on a Digital Platform to Support Preventive Antenatal Care: Qualitative Descriptive Study

Authors of this article:

Emma Doherty1, 2, 3 Author Orcid Image ;   Sophie Dilworth4 Author Orcid Image ;   Alice Rice5 Author Orcid Image ;   Taya Wedesweiler1 Author Orcid Image ;   Ranju Shrestha1 Author Orcid Image ;   Sharni Greenwood1 Author Orcid Image ;   Michelle Foster6 Author Orcid Image ;   Janaya Lewis6 Author Orcid Image ;   Justine Daly1, 2, 3 Author Orcid Image ;   Rebecca Wyse1, 2, 3 Author Orcid Image ;   Carly Mallise1, 2, 3 Author Orcid Image ;   Melanie Kingsland1, 2, 3 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Original Paper

    1Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia

    2School of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia

    3Population Health Research Group, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia

    4Nursing and Midwifery Research Centre, Hunter New England Local Health District, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia

    5Single Digital Patient Record Implementation Authority, New South Wales Department of Health, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia

    6Women's Health and Maternity Network, Hunter New England Local Health District, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australia

    Corresponding Author:

    Emma Doherty, PhD

    Population Health

    Hunter New England Local Health District

    Locked Bag 10

    Wallsend, New South Wales, 2287

    Australia

    Phone: 61 49246499

    Email: emma.doherty@health.nsw.gov.au


    Background: Modifiable health risks in pregnancy are common and contribute to adverse maternal and infant outcomes, yet preventive care addressing these risks can be difficult to deliver within time-limited antenatal appointments. Hybrid models combining in-person care with digital platforms offer a promising solution; however, there is limited evidence regarding consumer and health care professional perspectives on the preferred content and functionality of such platforms to inform their design.

    Objective: This study aimed to explore consumer and health care professional perspectives on the ideal content and functionality of a digital platform to support preventive antenatal care.

    Methods: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted across 2 regional maternity services in New South Wales, Australia. Four workshops were held with recently pregnant consumers and antenatal health care professionals, using purposive sampling to include Aboriginal and culturally and linguistically diverse participants. Data were analyzed using applied thematic analysis, guided by a predefined framework, which examined what content should be included, how the platform should function, and why it was needed.

    Results: A total of 23 consumers and 12 health care professionals participated. Participants identified key content requirements, including digital risk assessments, evidence-based and personalized information, practical resources, clear support options, and content extending into the postbirth period. Preferred functionalities included early access to the platform, appointment-aligned reminders, integration with routine workflows, tracking tools, multiple content delivery formats, filtering options, and information-sharing options. Participants described gaps in early pregnancy information and noted that digitally provided care could reduce stigma, support more honest disclosure, and enhance communication.

    Conclusions: Consumers and health care professionals identified key content and functionality requirements for a digital platform to support preventive antenatal care. Prioritizing credible information, early access, and integration with routine workflows may improve the acceptability and utility of digital solutions. Future research is needed to examine real-world implementation.

    JMIR Form Res 2026;10:e98438

    doi:10.2196/98438

    Keywords

    antenatal care; digital health; preventive care; modifiable health risks; consumers; health care professionals; qualitative research 


    Addressing modifiable health risks in pregnancy is recognized as a public health priority [1-3]. Smoking, alcohol consumption, gestational weight gain outside of recommended ranges, poor dietary intake, and physical inactivity are well-established risk factors that adversely affect obstetric outcomes and have lasting consequences for maternal and child health [4-8]. More than 90% of pregnant people experience at least 1 modifiable health risk, with half reporting multiple risks simultaneously [9,10].

    Antenatal guidelines recommend addressing modifiable health risks routinely during antenatal visits. Recommended care includes risk assessment, brief advice, and referral to further support, such as health coaching or specialist services [11-14]. Although antenatal health care professionals are well positioned to provide such care, they face challenges in doing so within the constraints of busy, time-limited appointments [15]. Hybrid care models, which combine in-person care with digital platforms, have emerged as a potential solution for overcoming these barriers. Evidence suggests that hybrid care models improve flexibility for patients and allow health care professionals to use limited appointment time for more targeted support, leading to better outcomes [16]. This approach has shown promise in pregnancy, with studies of pregnant people who smoked demonstrating that those receiving hybrid care were substantially more likely to access cessation support and achieve 30-day abstinence than those receiving standard face-to-face antenatal care [17,18].

    Digital health strategies [19-22] and evidence-based frameworks for digital health design [23,24] recommend active end-user engagement to maximize acceptability, usability, and effectiveness. However, few digital solutions for preventive antenatal care have been developed with consumers and health care professionals involved from the outset, and studies exploring user preferences have typically examined these groups separately. For example, the US StartSmart project engaged consumers and health care professionals in developing a mobile health intervention to support antenatal care, including screening, brief intervention, and referral [25]. However, user involvement occurred largely after expert-led prototype development, limiting opportunities to shape foundational design decisions. Studies exploring consumer perspectives during the design and evaluation of digital platforms have highlighted the need for credible, locally relevant, and tailored information and support; self-management tools such as tracking, personalized feedback, and planning aids; and simple, intuitive interfaces that facilitate engagement [25-34]. In contrast, studies examining health care professional perspectives have emphasized the value of preappointment risk assessments, evidence-based and guideline-aligned content, tailored risk summaries and counseling prompts, integration with existing workflows and electronic health records, and features that facilitate communication between patients and health care professionals [18,25,26,35-37].

    Despite growing evidence on what consumers and health care professionals value in digital tools, these perspectives have rarely been considered together to inform the design of digital platforms for preventive antenatal care. Consequently, there is limited evidence regarding the content and functionality requirements needed to meet the needs of both consumers and health care professionals, which risks the development of solutions that are less acceptable, feasible, and effective within hybrid care models. To address this gap, this study examined and integrated the perspectives of consumers and antenatal health care professionals to identify the core content and functional requirements for a digital platform to support preventive antenatal care.


    This study is reported in accordance with the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) guidelines [38].

    Design and Setting

    A qualitative descriptive study was conducted during May 2024 and June 2024. Data were collected through workshops with a sample of consumers (recently pregnant people) and antenatal health care professionals from 2 regional maternity services within a local health district in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Separate workshops were held with consumers and health care professionals at each site, resulting in 4 workshops in total. Workshops were selected as they enabled in-depth exploration and idea generation to pragmatically inform preferences for the content and functionality of a digital platform to support preventive antenatal care. Consumers and health care professionals were separated to minimize power dynamics and encourage open discussion, as consumers may have been less willing to share their honest views in the presence of health care professionals.

    Sampling and Recruitment

    Purposive sampling was used to select participants for all workshops. This sampling technique allows the sample to be matched to the aims of the research and is considered appropriate for studies using small samples from limited geographic areas or restricted population definitions [39,40]. Recruitment intentionally targeted Aboriginal and culturally and linguistically diverse consumers, reflecting the population served by participating services and supporting equity considerations in digital health design. Eligible health care professionals included those delivering or supporting antenatal care, with efforts made to include a mix of clinical roles.

    Consumer leads (female community members who were part of the study team) distributed information through local networks and community channels, including private social media pages, local cafés, mothers’ groups, and childcare centers. Health care professionals were recruited via emails circulated by maternity service managers. Both groups were given 4 weeks to review the information and contact the study team to indicate interest. All eligible participants who expressed interest were invited to attend and provided written consent upon arrival to the workshops.

    Data Collection

    Workshops were facilitated by an experienced female qualitative researcher (SD), supported by a program manager (MK), 1 to 3 project officers (at least 1 of whom identified as Aboriginal; AR, TW, and SG), and 2 consumer leads (RS). The consumer leads were the only study team members with preexisting relationships with participants.

    Consumer workshops were held in community venues (with children and carers present), and health care professional workshops were held at maternity service sites. Workshops ran for 2 to 2.5 hours and followed a consistent schedule: introductions, establishment of group expectations, background information on preventive antenatal care, and a series of structured activities (Multimedia Appendix 1). All workshops were audio-recorded, and observation notes were taken to capture contextual factors.

    Data Analysis

    Data generated through structured workshop activities (collected on Post-it notes and Kraft paper summaries), together with audio recordings and observation notes, were synthesized into workshop summaries by 1 team member and checked by a second. Accuracy and credibility were supported through review of these summaries by the study’s consumer leads.

    Data were analyzed using applied thematic analysis [41]. A predefined “what, how, why” framework derived from the digital health literature was used to examine what content should be included, how the platform should function, and why it was needed [27]. This framework served as the coding structure for organizing and interpreting the data. Two team members independently coded the workshop summaries and met regularly to resolve discrepancies and refine interpretations. Themes were identified iteratively within and across workshops and subsequently synthesized to identify overarching patterns across consumer and health care professional groups.

    Ethical Considerations

    The study was approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH00993 and 2019/ETH00998), the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2016-0422 and H-2017-0032), and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (1236/16). All participants provided informed written consent prior to taking part in the workshops. Data were deidentified prior to analysis, and no identifying information was retained; all audio and written files were stored securely in accordance with institutional privacy requirements. Consumer participants received a gift certificate in recognition of their time, consistent with the NSW Hunter New England Health consumer remuneration rate [42].


    Participants

    A total of 23 consumers participated across 2 workshops (n=13, 57% and n=10, 43%). Their ages ranged from 19 to 39 years. Of the 23 consumers, 6 (26%) identified as Aboriginal, 9 (39%) reported a cultural background other than Australian, and 8 (35%) spoke a language other than English. In addition, 12 health care professionals participated, with 6 (50%) in each workshop, including 5 (42%) midwives, 2 (17%) antenatal clinic managers, 1 (8%) social worker, 1 (8%) obstetrician, 1 (8%) Aboriginal Health Worker, and 2 (17%) students (nursing or midwifery and social work). Only 17% (2/12) of health care professionals identified as Aboriginal.

    Ideal Digital Platform to Support Preventive Antenatal Care

    Guided by the “what, how, why” framework, analysis identified themes relating to the content, functionality, and value of a digital platform to support preventive antenatal care within a hybrid model. Figure 1 and the following sections present these findings from consumer and health care professional perspectives.

    ‎
    Figure 1. Consumer and health care professional perspectives on the ideal digital platform to support preventive antenatal care within a hybrid model. Hybrid antenatal care refers to the delivery of guideline-recommended preventive care through a combination of a digital platform and face-to-face antenatal visits. In this model, the digital platform supports risk assessment, education, linkage to support, and self-management between appointments, while in-person visits focus on tailored follow-up. This approach differs from standard antenatal care, in which preventive care activities are delivered primarily during face-to-face appointments, with limited structured support between visits.

    What: Desired Content

    Assessment of Preventive Risk Status

    Participants wanted the platform to collect risk information normally gathered during antenatal visits. Consumers valued having time to “reflect more carefully,” while health care professionals felt digital completion could “increase assessment rates” and “reduce time spent on assessments that take up so much time in appointments.” Both groups wanted clear explanations of upcoming assessments and how responses would be used, with several participants emphasizing the importance of knowing “whether answers form the basis of any mandatory reporting,” particularly when disclosing sensitive information such as alcohol use in pregnancy.

    Evidence-Based and Trustworthy Information

    Participants emphasized the need for reliable, current, and unambiguous guidance, particularly given conflicting online advice. Health care professionals described how “many pregnant people do not know what they can and cannot be doing” and expressed frustration that “everyone is learning things off TikTok.” Both groups wanted clear explanations of mechanisms of harm, such as “what smoking does to the placenta to cause low birth weight,” and clarity on issues such as the harms of vaping and alcohol use. One consumer highlighted the importance of this, noting that “you think that the baby is OK because they look alright, but what people often do not understand is that alcohol effects are usually on brain development rather than appearance.”

    Personally Relevant Information

    Participants wanted information tailored to gestational stage, pregnancy symptoms, and cultural context. One consumer explained that they wanted content about physical activity “matched to what part of pregnancy you are up to and the kinds of pains you could be having.” Health care professionals emphasized cultural inclusivity, noting the need to “tailor it to the girls, who they are, and where they come from,” including culturally specific cooking practices when presenting dietary information and acknowledging differing cultural expectations around physical activity during pregnancy.

    Practical Information

    Participants valued concrete, actionable guidance that could be easily incorporated into daily routines. They wanted recipes (including for special diets), meal planning ideas, strategies for increasing iron intake, and alternatives to alcohol, such as mocktail recipes. One consumer noted that “you are going to need it all when trying to make behaviour changes.” Health care professionals highlighted the value of simple solutions to common issues, such as pregnancy discomforts, explaining that “simple exercise actually makes all those pains better.”

    Help and Support Options

    Participants wanted clear descriptions of available support services and the ability to self-refer directly through the platform. One consumer explained that “if they want referral to Quitline or Get Healthy in Pregnancy, they should be able to just press a button.” Health care professionals felt this approach would help pregnant people choose services that suited them, noting that “not all people will want the same services.”

    Preparation for Birth and the Postnatal Period

    Participants wanted comprehensive guidance on labor, birth, and early postnatal recovery, including practical strategies and clear explanations to help them feel prepared. Health care professionals highlighted gaps in current care, noting that “we really lack anything for that period here.” Participants also wanted information on infant feeding, mental health, and addressing modifiable health risks in the long term, with 1 consumer explaining, “I think it would be great if this app is not just something we use during pregnancy, but also after pregnancy as well.”

    How: Preferred Functionalities and Delivery Features

    Early Access and Reminders

    Participants wanted access to the platform early in pregnancy, ideally at pregnancy confirmation. Health care professionals suggested that “GPs [General Practitioners] could recommend the platform when the pregnancy is confirmed so women can get in early and know what is coming up,” and consumers wanted reminders aligned with upcoming antenatal visits, such as “a week before, then again a couple of days before,” to support completion of digital assessments. Health care professionals described this functionality as a “pre-appointment checklist” that would help pregnant people arrive informed and ready to discuss their priorities.

    Integration With Antenatal Appointments

    Both groups emphasized the need for integration with electronic health records to avoid duplication and ensure information flowed directly to support care. Health care professionals wanted key data visible within their usual workflow, explaining, “I do not want to sit with another app open, it would be ideal if that is already integrated into whatever record keeping system I am using.” They also wanted the platform to identify “red flags” so that important issues were not missed. Consumers highlighted the value of having a space within the platform to record notes and questions between appointments, noting, “I would think of things that I need to ask and then the appointment would come and now I forget.”

    Tracking Capabilities

    Participants valued tracking tools as a way to support self-management and motivation. Health care professionals felt these features could help pregnant people “have that power to self-manage, and say yeah I am doing a good job.” Participants also wanted the platform to integrate with existing health applications commonly used so that information such as daily steps, workouts, or nutrition data could be captured automatically rather than being manually entered.

    Personalization of Tool Features

    Participants wanted personalized profiles, such as due dates and appointment schedules, and opt-in or opt-out features so they could reduce pressure and engage only with the risk factors they felt ready to address. They also saw personalization as a way to support clearer communication and reduce misunderstandings. As 1 health care professional explained, “I might be able to translate ‘do you smoke’ and actually offend someone with the way I asked it,” highlighting how features that allow tailored wording and culturally sensitive phrasing could help avoid miscommunication.

    Multiple Modes of Content Delivery

    Participants wanted information delivered through multiple formats to accommodate different learning styles and literacy levels, including videos, images, quizzes, frequently asked questions, links to reputable external websites, and concise summaries with options to “extend and read more.” Videos were seen as particularly helpful for people who “cannot read or cannot read well.”

    Unrestricted Availability and Filtering of Information

    Participants wanted unrestricted access to all information with filtering and search options for specific needs. Some emphasized the importance of anonymous access to information for sensitive topics they may not want to disclose, such as alcohol use, explaining they wanted to “read about risk factors in their own time.”

    Sharing With Family and Friends

    Participants wanted shareable content to help navigate conflicting advice and involve partners in behavior change. Health care professionals described situations where “their mothers are telling them to do this, and we are telling them something different,” and felt that shareable content could help bridge these gaps. Participants also wanted partners, particularly those who smoke, to have access to relevant information so they could support behavior changes and use strategies to reduce the harm of household exposure.

    Why: Rationale for a Digital Platform

    Care Not Routinely Provided in Antenatal Appointments

    Participants described how time pressures and competing priorities limited preventive care discussions, with health care professionals noting they were “so busy doing all the assessments that we do not get to the actual business end of things.” A digital platform was seen as a way to ensure pregnant people still received essential information “in a safe place, on their phone, at home” when health care professionals could not cover everything in person. Health care professionals felt it could support “a multi-disciplinary, holistic care service” and fill gaps in routine care.

    Need for Earlier Information and Care

    Participants emphasized the long period between pregnancy confirmation and the first antenatal visit, describing feeling unsupported and “going blind for the first four months.” Health care professionals highlighted missed opportunities for early intervention, explaining that “women come in at 19-20 weeks and we have missed so many opportunities for intervening...that information needs to get to women earlier.” A digital platform was viewed as a way to provide timely, evidence-based guidance, with 1 health care professional noting that women would receive “more evidence-based information from this app than googling, which is what they have to do at the moment.”

    Choice and Self-Determination

    Participants valued the platform’s potential to support autonomy and self-directed behavior change. Health care professionals described it as “woman centred,” giving pregnant people “the option and choice in how they engage in their care.” Completing assessments independently was seen as empowering, with 1 health care professional noting that “there will be more drive for change when they are identifying their own needs,” and participants felt that self-initiated referrals would be more effective than health care professional-initiated ones: “if they do the referrals themselves, they are more likely to take them up and engage.”

    Potential for Increased Honesty and Specificity

    Participants believed digital assessments could reduce stigma and support more accurate disclosure of sensitive behaviors. Health care professionals anticipated “more honest and accurate responses,” as digital completion allowed pregnant people to “think about their answer, rather than feeling on the spot and judged.” They also felt that digital formats would “allow women to be more specific,” revealing details often missed in face-to-face discussions.

    Facilitating Relationships Between Health Care Professionals and Pregnant People

    Participants viewed the platform as enhancing, rather than replacing, relationships between pregnant people and health care professionals. Having information in advance was seen as helping health care professionals “review the questions before they come in and arrange the support women need,” while reducing the burden on pregnant people to “retell their story every time they come in.” Health care professionals felt that private access to information could reduce feelings of judgment and “really complement the care we provide and open up discussions,” particularly for emerging issues, such as vaping.


    Principal Findings

    This study identified the content and functionality that consumers and health care professionals consider essential for a digital platform designed to support preventive antenatal care. Participants described core content requirements, including structured risk assessments, evidence-based guidance, personally relevant and practical information, clear support options, and preparation for birth and the postnatal period. They also identified preferred delivery features, including personalized, integrated, and multimodal digital functions. Participants further articulated why such a platform is needed, highlighting gaps in standard face-to-face antenatal care; limited support in early pregnancy; and the potential for digital formats to enhance disclosure, autonomy, and communication.

    Comparison With Previous Literature

    Content

    Findings regarding desired content confirm and extend existing research. Consistent with international and Australian studies [18,35,36], participants emphasized the value of structured digital risk assessments, describing them as opportunities for reflection and honesty, while health care professionals highlighted their potential to improve efficiency and comprehensiveness. Participants also wanted reputable, clearly articulated, personalized, and practical information that explains both the harms and benefits associated with modifiable health risks, aligning with previous research. Our findings extend this literature by identifying specific content examples valued by users, including explanations of mechanisms of harm associated with smoking, culturally specific cooking practices, and precise guidance on vaping and secondhand smoke exposure. Participants also emphasized the importance of embedding clear and accessible help and support pathways within the platform, extending previous studies on local support options [29].

    These content preferences align closely with behavior change techniques identified in systematic reviews as effective for improving outcomes related to smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical activity [33,43-45], and map directly onto strategies embedded within digital health intervention taxonomies [46], indicating a strong convergence between what consumers and health care professionals consider useful and the approaches most likely to support behavior change. Together, these content areas provide specific, actionable guidance for designing digital platforms that better meet the needs of both pregnant people and health care professionals within hybrid models of preventive care.

    Functionalities and Delivery Features

    Participants also identified functionalities that could maximize usability and integration into antenatal care. Consistent with prior studies [27,29,32,34], participants valued health tracking tools and multimedia formats for supporting self-management and engagement. Our findings extend this evidence by highlighting the importance of early linkage to a digital platform, appointment-aligned reminders, the ability to share information with family and friends, and opt-in or opt-out controls to tailor use. These preferences align with systematic reviews identifying proactive messaging, self-monitoring, feedback, and social support as mechanisms that enhance digital health engagement [27,43-45]. Health care professionals reinforced existing evidence that tailored risk summaries, counseling prompts, and integration with electronic health records are essential for efficiency [25] and further emphasized the value of receiving assessment results in advance to support the prioritization and tailoring of care and multidisciplinary coordination. These findings suggest that digital platforms have the potential to address longstanding challenges in antenatal care, including time constraints, fragmented information flow, and limited opportunities for personalized support, if they include functionalities that enable efficient preparation, more targeted conversations, and more consistent follow-up.

    Rationale for a Digital Platform

    Participants described a persistent gap between pregnancy confirmation and antenatal care, a period marked by limited structured support and missed opportunities for early guidance [47]. Digital platforms were viewed as a practical way to provide consistent information and referral pathways during this time, reducing reliance on informal advice [48]. Participants also felt that digital assessments could support more honest disclosure of sensitive risk factors, echoing evidence that computer-based tools reduce social desirability bias and improve reporting of alcohol, smoking, and substance use [49]. Rather than replacing interpersonal care, digital tools were seen as enhancing communication and cultural responsiveness by helping pregnant people prepare for appointments and engage more confidently in discussions, consistent with research on digital resources supporting communication and self-advocacy [50]. Overall, these perspectives suggest that digital platforms may strengthen preventive antenatal care, with future testing of implementation required to explore whether these perceived benefits are realized in practice.

    Strengths and Limitations

    A key strength of this study is the integration of both consumer and health care professional perspectives, enabling a comprehensive understanding of how digital platforms may support preventive antenatal care. Strong representation from Aboriginal and culturally and linguistically diverse participants helped embed equity considerations within the findings [51]. Workshops conducted in 2 regional maternity services ensured context-specific detail relevant to local workflows and community preferences. Limitations include the regional setting, which may limit transferability, and the developmental nature of the study, meaning that the findings reflect anticipated rather than observed use.

    Conclusions

    This study identified the content and functionality that consumers and health care professionals view as important for a digital platform designed to support preventive antenatal care. Future research should examine real-world implementation to determine whether the anticipated benefits of a hybrid approach to preventive antenatal care are realized.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors thank the consumers and antenatal health care professionals who participated in the workshops and generously shared their experiences and insights. Their contributions were essential to shaping this research. The authors acknowledge the support of the maternity service staff who assisted with recruitment and workshop coordination. The authors also thank Grace Butler, Meakan Kellner, Tannika Lewis, and Robyn Howard for their assistance in the delivery of the workshops.

    Data Availability

    The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

    Funding

    This project was supported by a New South Wales Regional Health Partners grant. The funder had no involvement in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.

    Authors' Contributions

    The study was conceived and designed by MK. MK, SD, AR, TW, SG, RS, RW, JD, and CM led the development of the workshop materials, coordinated recruitment, and facilitated data collection. ED and TW conducted the data analysis with input from SD, RS, and MK. Maternity service partners (MF and JL) and the clinical lead (RS) contributed essential contextual and clinical expertise that informed the study design, interpretation of findings, and refinement of the manuscript. ED led the drafting of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and provided critical feedback on the manuscript and approved the final version.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Workshop activities guide.

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 144 KB
    1. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. World Health Organization. Nov 28, 2016. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549912 [accessed 2026-03-15]
    2. Australian pregnancy care guidelines. MAGICapp. URL: https://app.magicapp.org/?language=ms#/guideline/jm83RE [accessed 2026-03-15]
    3. Antenatal care. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Aug 19, 2021. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng201 [accessed 2026-03-15]
    4. Chia AR, Chen LW, Lai JS, Wong CH, Neelakantan N, van Dam RM, et al. Maternal dietary patterns and birth outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv Nutr. Jul 01, 2019;10(4):685-695. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. da Silva SG, Ricardo LI, Evenson KR, Hallal PC. Leisure-time physical activity in pregnancy and maternal-child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Sports Med. Feb 2017;47(2):295-317. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Goldstein RF, Abell SK, Ranasinha S, Misso M, Boyle JA, Black MH, et al. Association of gestational weight gain with maternal and infant outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. Jun 06, 2017;317(21):2207-2225. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Report for systematic reviews of the association between different levels and patterns of maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy and while breastfeeding and selected health outcomes for fetuses and children (up to age five). Cochrane Australia and SAHMRI. 2018. URL: https:/​/www.​nhmrc.gov.au/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​attachments/​Alcohol/​7-systematic-review-association-alcohol-consump.​pdf [accessed 2026-03-18]
    8. Australia's mothers and babies. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. URL: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/australias-mothers-babies/contents/summary [accessed 2026-03-18]
    9. Muhajarine N, D'Arcy C, Edouard L. Prevalence and predictors of health risk behaviours during early pregnancy: Saskatoon pregnancy and health study. Can J Public Health. 1997;88(6):375-379. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Passey ME, Sanson-Fisher RW, D'Este CA, Stirling JM. Tobacco, alcohol and cannabis use during pregnancy: clustering of risks. Drug Alcohol Depend. Jan 01, 2014;134:44-50. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Reducing the effects of smoking and vaping on pregnancy and newborn outcomes. New South Wales Government. 2022. URL: https://www1.health.nsw.gov.au/pds/ActivePDSDocuments/PD2022_050.pdf [accessed 2026-01-27]
    12. Supporting smoking cessation: a guide for health professionals. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. URL: https:/​/www.​racgp.org.au/​clinical-resources/​clinical-guidelines/​key-racgp-guidelines/​view-all-racgp-guidelines/​supporting-smoking-cessation [accessed 2026-01-27]
    13. National guide to preventive healthcare for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. URL: https://www.racgp.org.au/clinical-resources/clinical-guidelines/key-racgp-guidelines/national-guide [accessed 2026-01-27]
    14. Guidelines for Preventive Activities in General Practice. 10th Edition. Melbourne, Australia. Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; 2024.
    15. Dilworth S, Doherty E, Mallise C, Licata M, Hollis J, Wynne O, et al. Barriers and enablers to addressing smoking, nutrition, alcohol consumption, physical activity and gestational weight gain (SNAP-W) as part of antenatal care: a mixed methods systematic review. Implement Sci Commun. Oct 09, 2024;5(1):112. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Al-Razouki M, Smith S. Hybrid Healthcare. Cham, Switzerland. Springer International Publishing; 2022.
    17. Ondersma SJ, Svikis DS, Lam PK, Connors-Burge VS, Ledgerwood DM, Hopper JA. A randomized trial of computer-delivered brief intervention and low-intensity contingency management for smoking during pregnancy. Nicotine Tob Res. Mar 2012;14(3):351-360. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Tsoh JY, Kohn MA, Gerbert B. Promoting smoking cessation in pregnancy with Video Doctor plus provider cueing: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(4):515-523. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Global strategy on digital health 2020-2025. World Health Organization. Aug 18, 2021. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020924 [accessed 2026-03-26]
    20. National digital health strategy 2023-2028. Australian Digital Health Agency. URL: https:/​/www.​digitalhealth.gov.au/​sites/​default/​files/​documents/​national-digital-health-strategy-2023-2028.​pdf [accessed 2026-03-26]
    21. Fit for the future: 10 year health plan for England - executive summary (accessible version). United Kingdom Government. Jul 30, 2025. URL: https:/​/www.​gov.uk/​government/​publications/​10-year-health-plan-for-england-fit-for-the-future/​fit-for-the-future-10-year-health-plan-for-england-executive-summary [accessed 2026-03-27]
    22. Canadian digital healthcare strategies: insights on common themes, priorities, and calls to action. Digital Health Canada. Sep 2023. URL: https:/​/digitalhealthcanada.​com/​wp-content/​uploads/​2023/​10/​CHIEF-Strategy-Working-Group-Summary-v100223.​pdf [accessed 2026-03-27]
    23. Yardley L, Morrison L, Bradbury K, Muller I. The person-based approach to intervention development: application to digital health-related behavior change interventions. J Med Internet Res. Jan 30, 2015;17(1):e30. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Kowatsch T, Otto L, Harperink S, Cotti A, Schlieter H. A design and evaluation framework for digital health interventions. Inf Technol. Nov 20, 2019;61(5-6):253-263. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
    25. Gance-Cleveland B, Leiferman J, Aldrich H, Nodine P, Anderson J, Nacht A, et al. Using the technology acceptance model to develop StartSmart: mHealth for screening, brief intervention, and referral for risk and protective factors in pregnancy. J Midwifery Womens Health. Sep 2019;64(5):630-640. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Li J, Silvera-Tawil D, Varnfield M, Hussain MS, Math V. Users' perceptions toward mHealth technologies for health and well-being monitoring in pregnancy care: qualitative interview study. JMIR Form Res. Dec 02, 2021;5(12):e28628. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Rhodes A, Pimprikar A, Baum A, Smith AD, Llewellyn CH. Using the person-based approach to develop a digital intervention targeting diet and physical activity in pregnancy: development study. JMIR Form Res. May 26, 2023;7:e44082. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Wu J, Tombor I, Shahab L, West R. Usability testing of a smoking cessation smartphone application ('SmokeFree Baby'): a think-aloud study with pregnant smokers. Digit Health. Apr 12, 2017;3:2055207617704273. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Lee VV, Vijayakumar S, Ng WY, Lau NY, Leong QY, Ooi DS, et al. Personalization and localization as key expectations of digital health intervention in women pre- to post-pregnancy. NPJ Digit Med. Sep 30, 2023;6(1):183. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Herbec A, Brown J, Tombor I, Michie S, West R. Pilot randomized controlled trial of an internet-based smoking cessation intervention for pregnant smokers ('MumsQuit'). Drug Alcohol Depend. Jul 01, 2014;140(100):130-136. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Cawley C, Buckenmeyer H, Jellison T, Rinaldi JB, Vartanian KB. Effect of a health system-sponsored mobile app on perinatal health behaviors: retrospective cohort study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 06, 2020;8(7):e17183. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Lazarevic N, Pizzuti C, Rosic G, Bœhm C, Williams K, Caillaud C. A mixed-methods study exploring women's perceptions and recommendations for a pregnancy app with monitoring tools. NPJ Digit Med. Mar 24, 2023;6(1):50. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Rhodes A, Smith AD, Chadwick P, Croker H, Llewellyn CH. Exclusively digital health interventions targeting diet, physical activity, and weight gain in pregnant women: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Jul 10, 2020;8(7):e18255. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Henrich N, Brinson A, Arnold A, Jahnke HR. Digital health needs and preferences during pregnancy and the postpartum period: mixed methods study. JMIR Form Res. Jan 12, 2024;8:e48960. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Hartmann KE, Wechter ME, Payne P, Salisbury K, Jackson RD, Melvin CL. Best practice smoking cessation intervention and resource needs of prenatal care providers. Obstet Gynecol. Oct 2007;110(4):765-770. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Calderón SH, Gilbert P, Jackson R, Kohn MA, Gerbert B. Cueing prenatal providers effects on discussions of intimate partner violence. Am J Prev Med. Feb 2008;34(2):134-137. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Wilkinson S, Beckmann M, Donaldson E, McCray S. Implementation of gestational weight gain guidelines - what's more effective for ensuring weight recording in pregnancy? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. Feb 12, 2019;19(1):19. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. Dec 2007;19(6):349-357. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Campbell S, Greenwood M, Prior S, Shearer T, Walkem K, Young S, et al. Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. J Res Nurs. Dec 2020;25(8):652-661. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Lavrakas PJ. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE Publications; 2011.
    41. Guest G, MacQueen KM, Namey EE. Introduction to applied thematic analysis. In: Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE Publications; 2012.
    42. Consumer, carer and community member remuneration. New South Wales Government. 2023. URL: https://www1.health.nsw.gov.au/pds/Pages/doc.aspx?dn=GL2023_016 [accessed 2026-02-02]
    43. Li Q, Li J. Behavior change techniques in pregnancy dietary interventions: a systematic review through the lens of the COM-B model. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. Jul 31, 2025;25(1):798. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Griffiths SE, Parsons J, Naughton F, Fulton EA, Tombor I, Brown KE. Are digital interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. Dec 2018;12(4):333-356. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Mair JL, Salamanca-Sanabria A, Augsburger M, Frese BF, Abend S, Jakob R, et al. Effective behavior change techniques in digital health interventions for the prevention or management of noncommunicable diseases: an umbrella review. Ann Behav Med. Sep 13, 2023;57(10):817-835. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Wang Y, Fadhil A, Lange JP, Reiterer H. Integrating taxonomies into theory-based digital health interventions for behavior change: a holistic framework. JMIR Res Protoc. Jan 15, 2019;8(1):e8055. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Aziz Ali S, Ahmed Dero A, Aziz Ali S, Bano Ali G. Factors affecting the utilization of antenatal care among pregnant women: a literature review. J Preg Neonatal Med. 2018;02(02):41-45. [CrossRef]
    48. Conrad M. Health information-seeking internet behaviours among pregnant women: a narrative literature review. J Reprod Infant Psychol. Mar 2024;42(2):194-208. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Ondersma SJ, Beatty JR, Svikis DS, Strickler RC, Tzilos GK, Chang G, et al. Computer-delivered screening and brief intervention for alcohol use in pregnancy: a pilot randomized trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. Jul 2015;39(7):1219-1226. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Johansen SK, Kanstrup AM, Haseli K, Stenmo VH, Thomsen JL, Rathleff MS. Exploring user visions for modeling mHealth apps toward supporting patient-parent-clinician collaboration and shared decision-making when treating adolescent knee pain in general practice: workshop study. JMIR Hum Factors. Apr 28, 2023;10:e44462. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Hughson JA, Daly JO, Woodward-Kron R, Hajek J, Story D. The rise of pregnancy apps and the implications for culturally and linguistically diverse women: narrative review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Nov 16, 2018;6(11):e189. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    COREQ: Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research
    GP: General Practitioner
    NSW: New South Wales

    Edited by M Alzyood, A Mavragani; submitted 16.Apr.2026; peer-reviewed by DV Khanal, D Fox; comments to author 25.Jun.2026; accepted 24.Jul.2026; published 31.Aug.2026.

    Copyright

    ©Emma Doherty, Sophie Dilworth, Alice Rice, Taya Wedesweiler, Ranju Shrestha, Sharni Greenwood, Michelle Foster, Janaya Lewis, Justine Daly, Rebecca Wyse, Carly Mallise, Melanie Kingsland. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 31.Aug.2026.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.