Threats and thrills: pregnancy apps, risk and consumption

by | Jul 1, 2015 | Research Publications

Author(s):

  • Thomas, Gareth M.
  • Lupton, Deborah

Abstracts:

In this article, we draw on the findings of a critical discourse analysis of pregnancy-related mobile software applications designed for smartphones (‘apps’) to examine how such apps configure pregnant embodiment. Drawing on a detailed analysis of all such apps available in June 2015 in the two major global app stores Google Play and Apple App Store, we discuss how such technologies (the ‘threats’ mode of representation) portray the pregnant body as a site of risk requiring careful self-surveillance using apps to reduce potential harm to women and particularly their foetuses. We show that the second dominant mode of representation (‘thrills’) constructs the pregnant body and self-tracking in more playful terms. App developers use ludification strategies and encourage the social sharing of pregnancy-related details as part of emphasising the enjoyable aspects of pregnancy. We found that both types of pregnancy-related apps endorse expectations around pregnancy behaviour that reproduce heteronormative and gendered ideals around sexuality, parenthood and consumption. These apps are sociocultural artefacts enacting pregnant bodies as sites of both risk and pleasure. In both cases, users of the apps are encouraged to view pregnancy as an embodied mode of close monitoring and surveillance, display and performance.

Documents:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698575.2015.1127333

References:
  1. Ackerman, L. (2013). Mobile health and fitness applications and information privacy. San Diego, CA: Privacy Rights Clearing House. [Google Scholar]
  2. Burton-Jeangros, C. (2011). Surveillance of risks in everyday life: The agency of pregnant women and its limitations. Social Theory & Health, 9(4), 419–436. doi:10.1057/sth.2011.15 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  3. Coxon, K. (2014). Risk in pregnancy and birth: Are we talking to ourselves? Health, Risk & Society, 16(6), 481–493. doi:10.1080/13698575.2014.957262 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  4. Declercq, E., Sakala, C., Corry, M., Applebaum, S., & Herrlich, A. (2013). Listening to mothers III: Pregnancy and birth. New York: Childbirth Connection. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dembosky, A. (2013, July 17 2014). Pregnancy apps raise fresh privacy concerns. The Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c560432-2782-11e3-ae16-00144feab7de.html#axzz37gHqmHO7[Google Scholar]
  6. Derbyshire, E., & Dancey, D. (2013). Smartphone medical applications for women’s health: What is the evidence-base and feedback? International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications, 2013. doi:10.1155/2013/782074 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  7. Dickerman, C., Christensen, J., & Kerl-McClain, S. B. (2008). Big breasts and bad guys: Depictions of gender and race in video games. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 3(1), 20–29. doi:10.1080/15401380801995076 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
  8. Doty, J. L., & Dworkin, J. (2014). Online social support for parents: A critical review. Marriage & Family Review, 50(2), 174–198. doi:10.1080/01494929.2013.834027 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
  9. Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  10. Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 357–378). London, UK: Sage. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  11. Frissen, V., Lammes, S., De Lange, M., De Mul, J., & Raessens, J. (Eds). (2015). Playful identities: The ludification of digital media cultures. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  12. Hearn, L., Miller, M., & Fletcher, A. (2013). Online healthy lifestyle support in the perinatal period: What do women want and do they use it? Australian Journal of Primary Health, 19(4), 313–318. doi:10.1071/PY13039 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  13. Hearn, L., Miller, M., & Lester, L. (2014). Reaching perinatal women online: The healthy you, healthy baby website and app. Journal of Obesity. doi:10.1155/2014/573928 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]
  14. Horlick-Jones, T. (2005). On ‘risk work’: Professional discourse, accountability, and everyday action. Health, Risk & Society, 7(3), 293–307. doi:10.1080/13698570500229820 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  15. Huckvale, K., Prieto, J., Tilney, M., Benghozi, P.-J., & Car, J. (2015). Unaddressed privacy risks in accredited health and wellness apps: A cross-sectional systematic assessment. BMC Medicine, 13(1). Retrieved September 6, 2015, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/214[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  16. Jahns, R.-G. (2014, September 16) The 8 drivers and barriers that will shape the mHealth app market in the next 5 years. research2guidance. Retrieved from http://mhealtheconomics.com/the-8-drivers-and-barriers-that-will-shape-the-mhealth-app-market-in-the-next-5-years/[Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson, S. (2014). “Maternal devices”, social media and the self-management of pregnancy, mothering and child health. Societies, 4(2), 330–350. doi:10.3390/soc4020330 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  18. Kraschnewski, L. J., Chuang, H. C., Poole, S. E., Peyton, T., Blubaugh, I., Pauli, J., & 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. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(6), e147. Retrieved from http://www.jmir.org/2014/6/e147/[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  19. Kroløkke, C. (2010). On a trip to the womb: Biotourist metaphors in fetal ultrasound imaging. Women’s Studies in Communication, 33(2), 138–153. doi:10.1080/07491409.2010.507577 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
  20. Landsman, G. (2009). Reconstructing motherhood and disability in the age of ‘perfect’ babies: Lives of mothers and infants and toddlers with disabilities. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  21. Littler, J. (2013). The rise of the ‘yummy mummy’: Popular conservatism and the neoliberal maternal in contemporary British culture. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6(2), 227–243. doi:10.1111/cccr.2013.6.issue-2 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  22. Longhurst, R. (2000). Corporeographies’ of pregnancy: ‘bikini babes. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(4), 453–472. doi:10.1068/d234 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]Longhurst, R. (2005). Maternities: Gender, bodies and space. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]Lupton, D. (2012). ‘Precious cargo’: Foetal subjects, risk and reproductive citizenship. Critical Public Health, 22(3), 329–340. doi:10.1080/09581596.2012.657612 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  23. Lupton, D. (2013). The social worlds of the unborn. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  24. Lupton, D. (2014a). Critical perspectives on digital health technologies. Sociology Compass, 8(12), 1344–1359. doi:10.1111/soc4.12226 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  25. Lupton, D. (2014b). Apps as artefacts: Towards a critical perspective on mobile health and medical apps. Societies, 4(4), 606–622. doi:10.3390/soc4040606 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  26. Lupton, D. (2015a). Health promotion in the digital era: A critical commentary. Health Promotion International, 30(1), 174–183. doi:10.1093/heapro/dau091 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  27. Lupton, D. (2015b). Quantified sex: A critical analysis of sexual and reproductive self-tracking using apps. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(4), 440–453. doi:10.1080/13691058.2014.920528 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  28. Lupton, D., & Jutel, A. (2015). ‘It’s like having a physician in your pocket!’ A critical analysis of self-diagnosis smartphone apps. Social Science & Medicine, 133, 128–135. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.04.004 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  29. Lupton, D., & Thomas, G. M. (2015). Playing pregnancy: The ludification and gamification of expectant motherhood in smartphone apps. M/C Journal, 18(5). Retrieved from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/1012[Google Scholar]
  30. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). (2014). Medical device stand-alone software including apps. London: The Stationery Office (TSO). [Google Scholar]Mitchell, L. (2001). Baby’s first picture: Ultrasound and the politics of fetal subjects. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  31. Mitchell, L. M., & Georges, E. (1997). Cross-cultural cyborgs: Greek and Canadian women’s discourses on fetal ultrasound. Feminist Studies, 23(2), 373–401. doi:10.2307/3178405 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  32. Nash, M. (2013). Making ‘postmodern’ mothers: Pregnant embodiment, baby bumps and body image. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  33. Neiterman, E. (2012). Doing pregnancy: Pregnant embodiment as performance. Women’s Studies International Forum, 35(5), 372–383. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2012.07.004 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  34. O’Higgins, A., Murphy, O. C., Egan, A., Mullaney, L., Sheehan, S., & Turner, M. J. (2014). The use of digital media by women using the maternity services in a developed country. Irish Medical Journal, 107(10), 313–315. [PubMed], [Google Scholar]
  35. Peyton, T., Poole, E., Reddy, M., Kraschnewski, J., & Chuang, C. (2014). Every pregnancy is different: Designing mHealth for the pregnancy ecology. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing Interactive Systems, ACM, 577–586. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rich, E., & Miah, A. (2014). Understanding digital health as public pedagogy: A critical framework. Societies, 4(2), 296–315. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/4/2/296[Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  37. Robinson, F., & Jones, C. (2014). Women’s engagement with mobile device applications in pregnancy and childbirth. The Practising Midwife, 17(1), 23–25. [PubMed], [Google Scholar]
  38. Rodger, D., Skuse, A., Wilmore, M., Humphreys, S., Dalton, J., Flabouris, M., & Clifton, V. L. (2013). Pregnant women’s use of information and communications technologies to access pregnancy-related health information in South Australia. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 19(4), 308–312. doi:10.1071/PY13029 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  39. Ruhl, L. (1999). Liberal governance and prenatal care: Risk and regulation in pregnancy. Economy and Society, 28(1), 95–117. doi:10.1080/03085149900000026 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  40. Scott, K., Gome, G., Richards, D., & Caldwell, P. H. Y. (2015). How trustworthy are apps for maternal and child health? Health and Technology, 4(4), 329–336. doi:10.1007/s12553-015-0099-x [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  41. Seneviratne, S., Seneviratne, A., Mohapatra, P., & Mahanti, A. (2015). Your installed apps reveal your gender and more! Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 18(3), 55–61. doi:10.1145/2721896 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  42. Statista. (2015a, June 26). Cumulative number of apps downloaded from the Apple App Store from July 2008 to June 2015 (in billions). Statista Inc. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/263794/number-of-downloads-from-the-apple-app-store/[Google Scholar]
  43. Statista. (2015b, June 26). Number of apps available in leading app stores as of May 2015. Statista Inc. Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sutherland, J.-A. (2010). Mothering, guilt and shame. Sociology Compass, 4, 310–321. doi:10.1111/(ISSN)1751-9020 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  45. Taylor, J. (2008). The public life of the fetal sonogram: Technology, consumption and the politics of reproduction. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. [Google Scholar]
  46. Thornham, H. (2008). It’s a boy thing. Feminist Media Studies, 8(2), 127–142. doi:10.1080/14680770801980505 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
  47. Tripp, N., Hainey, K., Liu, A., Poulton, A., Peek, M., Kim, J., & Nanan, R. (2014). An emerging model of maternity care: Smartphone, midwife, doctor? Women and Birth, 27(1), 64–67. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2013.11.001 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  48. Warren, S., & Brewis, J. (2004). Matter over mind? Examining the experience of pregnancy. Sociology, 38(2), 219–236. doi:10.1177/0038038504040860 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  49. Weir, L. (2006). Pregnancy, risk, and biopolitics: On the threshold of the living subject. London: Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  50. Yetisen, A. K., Martinez-Hurtado, J., da Cruz Vasconcellos, F., Simsekler, M. C. E., Akram, M. S., & Lowe, C. R. (2014). The regulation of mobile medical applications. Lab on a Chip, 14(5), 833–840. doi:10.1039/c3lc51235e [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]