This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Background: The Apgar score is the most common score used to quantify neonatal status after birth. It is routinely used in clinical practice and research. However, since its introduction there have been significant changes in peripartum and neonatal management, our understanding of neonatal physiology, and changes in data analysis capabilities. Purpose: To assess the Apgar score's reliability and validity in the context of today's clinical and research environments. Method: PubMed was searched using the term “Apgar.” Just over 22,000 titles were identified. Full-text articles were obtained if they addressed the Apgar score's use, reliability, and validity, or if the score was a primary outcome measure. This was followed by a hand search using the same criteria. The 505 identified articles build the basis for this discussion of the Apgar score's reliability and validity. Findings: Multiple positive and negative aspects of the Apgar score's reliability and validity were identified. Some facets needed to evaluate reliability and validity do not seem to have been addressed in the literature. Overall, the identified concerns can introduce bias into outcomes obtained via the use of the Apgar score in both clinical practice and research. Implications for Practice: The Apgar score is no longer used to determine neonatal management in the delivery room. Implications for Research: The use of the Apgar score in research may introduce bias into outcomes. As discussed in the Video Abstract, researchers need to address and improve the score's weaknesses or consider developing a new tool better suited to today's research needs. Video Abstract available at: https://journals.lww.com/advancesinneonatalcare/Pages/videogallery.aspx?autoPlay=false&videoId=45
This mixed-method study examined school nurses’ experiences during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic related to role change, psychological feelings, and coping/resiliency in the State of Hawaii. A total of 30 school nurses completed a Brief Resilience Coping Scale plus a series of open-ended questions in January 2022. On the coping scale, over 40% of participants scored high, 52% scored medium, and 7% scored a low resilient/coping level. We did not identify any association between coping level and participant characteristics. Three qualitative themes emerged: 1) school nurses experience chronic negative emotions related to the pandemic, 2) school nurses demonstrate attributes of resilience, and 3) school nurses utilize positive coping techniques. The pandemic created significant stresses and negative emotions among school nurses. Yet, school nurses reported effective coping strategies and demonstrated strength/resilience. Support and open communication between school nurses, their employers, and other school-based stakeholders is needed to provide continued support for school nurses.
Introduction In December 2020, the first two COVID-19 vaccines were approved in the United States (U.S.) and recommended for distribution to front-line personnel, including nurses. Nursing students are being prepared to fill critical gaps in the health care workforce and have played important supportive roles during the current pandemic. Research has focused on vaccine intentions of current health care providers and less is known about students’ intentions to vaccinate for COVID-19. Methods A national sample of undergraduate nursing students were recruited across five nursing schools in five U.S. regions in December 2020. The survey measured perceived risk/threat of COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, perceived safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, sources for vaccine information and level of intention to become vaccinated [primary, secondary (i.e., delayed), or no intention to vaccinate]. Results The final sample consisted of 772 students. The majority (83.6%) had intentions to be vaccinated, however of those 31.1% indicated secondary intention, a delay in intention or increased hesitancy). The strongest predictors of primary intention were positive attitudes (OR = 6.86; CI = 4.39–10.72), having lower safety concerns (OR = 0.26; CI = 0.18–0.36), and consulting social media as a source of information (OR = 1.56; CI = 1.23–1.97). Asian (OR = 0.47; CI = 0.23–0.97) and Black (OR 0.26; CI = 0.08–0.80) students were more likely to indicate secondary intention as compared to primary intention. Students in the Midwest were most likely to indicate no intention as compared to secondary intention (OR = 4.6; CI = 1.32–16.11). Conclusions As the first two COVID-19 vaccines were approved/recommended in the U.S. nursing students had overall high intentions to vaccinate. Findings can guide development of educational interventions that reduce concerns of vaccine safety that are delivered in a way that is supportive and affirming to minoritized populations while being respectful of geo-political differences.
Available evidence indicates that the successful immediate transition to extrauterine life should be completed within 1-3 hr after birth, though some adaptive processes can fail as late as 24-48 hr after birth. Further research is necessary to identify a feasible, easily used, noninvasive method to assess the status of a neonate's transition to extrauterine life.
Introduction Prenatal care (PNC) is a core element of preventive care and is vital in identifying and managing conditions that can put the pregnant person and the fetus at risk. National and international guidelines differ in what is considered adequate or quality PNC. Indices of care adequacy rely only on number of attended PNC visits without regard to factors that affect a patient's ability to obtain care or the quality of the care received. This integrative review explored stakeholders’ perceptions of adequate and quality PNC. Methods Three electronic databases, CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science, were searched to identify original research articles published between 2012 and April 2022. Studies conducted in the United States, published in a peer‐reviewed journal, and having a primary focus on the components of adequate or quality PNC were included. The quality of included studies was assessed via the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. Results Thirteen articles met inclusion criteria. The concepts of adequate or quality PNC were not well defined in the literature. Studies revealed a variety of approaches to assessing individual components of PNC with at times conflicting results of what adequate or quality PNC is. Viewpoints regarding adequacy or quality of PNC were limited by the perceptions and interpretations of individual stakeholders, who included researchers, public health officials, insurers, health care providers, and patients. Discussion Ideas of how to redesign PNC were affected by study setting and stakeholders, as well as the emergence and integration of telehealth into PNC delivery. This review is a first step in identifying the gap in the research literature regarding how these concepts are defined and measured. Future research is needed to identify the relevant components of PNC that are necessary to reach consensus definitions of both adequacy and quality of PNC.
BackgroundThe 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) risk‐based management consensus guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. These guidelines benefit patients by concentrating testing and treatment in those at highest cervical cancer risk. Adoption of guidelines often occurs slowly, with few studies examining the factors associated with guideline‐adherent management of abnormal results.MethodsTo elucidate the factors associated with the use of the 2019 ASCCP guidelines among clinicians who perform cervical cancer screening, physicians and advanced practice professionals who perform cervical cancer screening were cross‐sectionally surveyed. Clinicians responded to screening vignettes with differing recommendations for management between the 2019 and prior management guidelines. Screening vignette 1 involved reduction of invasive testing on a low‐risk patient; screening vignette 2 involved increased surveillance testing on a high‐risk patient. Binomial logistic regression models determined the factors associated with the use of the 2019 guidelines.ResultsA total of 1251 clinicians participated from across the United States. For screening vignettes 1 and 2, guideline‐adherent responses were given by 28% and 36% of participants, respectively. Management recommendations differed by specialty and were incorrect in different situations: there was inappropriate invasive testing by obstetrics and gynecology physicians (vignette 1) and inappropriate discontinuation of screening by family and internal medicine physicians (vignette 2). Regardless of their chosen response, over half erroneously believed they were guideline adherent.ConclusionsMany clinicians who believe they are following appropriate guidelines may not realize their management strategy is inconsistent with the 2019 guidelines. Education initiatives tailored to clinician specialty could address the understanding of current guidelines, encourage the use of updated guidelines, maximize patient benefits, and minimize harms.Plain Language Summary The 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk‐based management consensus guidelines are the most recent national guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening test management. We surveyed over 1200 obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), family medicine, and internal medicine physicians and advanced practice providers about their screening and abnormal results follow‐up practices in relation to guidelines. Few clinicians are following the 2019 guidelines. Management recommendations differed by clinician specialty and were incorrect in different situations: there was inappropriate invasive testing by OB/GYN physicians and inappropriate screening discontinuation by family and internal medicine physicians. Education tailored by clinician specialty could address the understanding of current guidelines, encourage the use of updated guidelines, maximize patient benefits, and minimize harms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.