The Paradox of AI Readiness in Digital Maternal Health Interventions in Abuja, Nigeria
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-supported digital health applications may offer opportunities to support maternal psychological well-being, but their successful implementation requires an understanding of intended users’ technology experiences, anticipated willingness, and perceptions of health data governance. Evidence concerning these factors among pregnant women attending different healthcare settings in Nigeria remains limited. Objective: To examine previous digital health technology use, stated willingness to use a hypothetical AI-supported application for managing pregnancy-related stress and worries, and perceived data privacy concerns among pregnant women attending primary and secondary healthcare facilities in Abuja, Nigeria. Methods: An exploratory cross-sectional pilot study included 40 pregnant women recruited through non-probability sampling from a primary healthcare centre (n = 20) and a secondary healthcare centre (n = 20). Data were collected using an electronically administered questionnaire through KoboCollect. Participant characteristics, previous technology use, anticipated AI application use, and perceptions of data security and personal health data control were assessed. Descriptive statistics and exploratory between-group comparisons were conducted, with exact tests applied to categorical data. Results: Overall, 34 participants (85.0%) owned an internet-enabled mobile phone, but only seven (17.5%) reported previous use of digital technologies for pregnancy-related health monitoring. When asked about a hypothetical AI-supported application operating safely and privately, 39 participants (97.5%) expressed positive willingness to use it. Among seven previous technology users, privacy/security concerns were reported by all three primary-care users and one of four secondary-care users; the difference was not statistically significant (Fisher’s exact p = 0.143). In the full sample, 65.0% of primary-care attendees and 15.0% of secondary-care attendees were very concerned about personal control over health information, with a difference in the overall three-category response distribution (p = 0.0058). Very high comfort with proposed anonymized data use was reported for medical services (85.0%), academic research (92.5%), and health technology product development (95.0%). Conclusion: Pregnant women in this exploratory sample expressed high conditional willingness to consider AI-supported maternal health applications, alongside distinct concerns about personal health data governance. The findings support further patient-centered research but do not establish actual AI adoption or clinical effectiveness. Larger multicentre studies using validated instruments and practical application assessments are warranted
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
1. World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group, UNDESA/Population Division. Trends in maternal mortality estimates 2000 to 2023: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and UNDESA/Population Division. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240108462
2. World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group, UNDESA/Population Division. Trends in maternal mortality 2000 to 2020: estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, World Bank Group and UNDESA/Population Division. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240068759
3. Aldinger JK, Abele H, Kranz A. Prenatal maternal psychological stress (PMPS) and its effect on the maternal and neonatal outcome: a retrospective cohort study. Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(23):2431. doi:10.3390/healthcare12232431.
4. Missler M, Donker T, Beijers R, Ciharova M, Moyse C, de Vries R, et al. Universal prevention of distress aimed at pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21:276. doi:10.1186/s12884-021-03752-2.
5. World Health Organization. WHO guide for integration of perinatal mental health in maternal and child health services. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240057142
6. Manolova G, Waqas A, Chowdhary N, Salisbury TT, Dua T. Integrating perinatal mental healthcare into maternal and perinatal services in low and middle income countries. BMJ. 2023;381:e073343. doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-073343.
7. Lin X, Liang C, Liu J, Lyu T, Ghumman N, Campbell B. Artificial intelligence–augmented clinical decision support systems for pregnancy care: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e54737. doi:10.2196/54737.
8. Alkhateeb M, Nayeem A, Ahmed A, Alsahli M, Sheikh J, Abd-Alrazaq A. AI for detecting and predicting postpartum depression: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2026;28:e77376. doi:10.2196/77376.
9. Sezgin E, Chekeni F, Lee J, Keim S. Clinical accuracy of large language models and Google Search responses to postpartum depression questions: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e49240. doi:10.2196/49240.
10. Oke GI, Sibomana O. Adoption of digital health technology in Nigeria: a scoping review of current trends and future directions. Adv Public Health. 2025;2025:4246285. doi:10.1155/adph/4246285.
11. Shuaib F, Garba AB, Meribole E, Obasi S, Sule A, Nnadi C, et al. Implementing the routine immunisation data module and dashboard of DHIS2 in Nigeria, 2014–2019. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(7):e002203. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002203.
12. African Union Commission. Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy. Addis Ababa: African Union Commission; 2024. Available from: https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/44004-doc-EN-_Continental_AI_Strategy_July_2024.pdf
13. World Health Organization. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200
14. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–340. doi:10.2307/249008.
15. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540.
16. Akinola O, Zimba R, Banda K, Mangani CL, Shakwelele H, Abdallah I, et al. A systematic review of implementation strategies to improve timely initiation of antenatal care among pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa. J Public Health Afr. 2026;17(1):1461. doi:10.4102/jphia.v17i1.1461.
17. Ngongo N, Dereje N, Hall S, Kaseya J. Charting Africa’s digital public health future: five priorities for action. J Public Health Afr. 2026;17(1):1857. doi:10.4102/jphia.v17i1.1857.
18. Kiwanuka SN, Kabwama SN, Namuhani N, Gupta S, Layer E, Mechael P, et al. Barriers and facilitators of the effective use of DHIS2 data to improve program planning and monitoring in Uganda: a sequential mixed methods study. Oxf Open Digit Health. 2026;4:oqag002. doi:10.1093/oodh/oqag002.
19. Huang S, Hu Y, Fu B, Tang G, Chen Z, Zhang L, et al. Help-seeking intentions for depression and associated factors among Chinese perinatal women: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(3):2288. doi:10.3390/ijerph20032288.
20. Irianti S, Fuadi MF, Ningsih SR, Puspitasari I, Nugraheni SA. Health screening and non-pharmacological interventions in antenatal care for pregnant women: a systematic review. Faletehan Health J. 2026;13(1):118–131. Available from: https://journal.lppm-stikesfa.ac.id/index.php/FHJ/article/view/908