Objective To systematically develop evidence‐based bundles for care of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Methods An international technical consultation was conducted in 2017 to develop draft bundles of clinical interventions for PPH taken from the WHO's 2012 and 2017 PPH recommendations and based on the validated “GRADE Evidence‐to‐Decision” framework. Twenty‐three global maternal‐health experts participated in the development process, which was informed by a systematic literature search on bundle definitions, designs, and implementation experiences. Over a 6‐month period, the expert panel met online and via teleconferences, culminating in a 2‐day in‐person meeting. Results The consultation led to the definition of two care bundles for facility implementation. The “first response to PPH bundle” comprises uterotonics, isotonic crystalloids, tranexamic acid, and uterine massage. The “response to refractory PPH bundle” comprises compressive measures (aortic or bimanual uterine compression), the non‐pneumatic antishock garment, and intrauterine balloon tamponade (IBT). Advocacy, training, teamwork, communication, and use of best clinical practices were defined as PPH bundle supporting elements. Conclusion For the first response bundle, further research should assess its feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness; and identify optimal implementation strategies. For the response to refractory bundle, further research should address pending controversies, including the operational definition of refractory PPH and effectiveness of IBT devices.
BackgroundQuality improvement collaboratives (QICs) have been used to improve health care for decades. Evidence on QIC effectiveness has been reported, but systematic reviews to date have little information from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of QICs in LMICs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review following Cochrane methods, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for quality of evidence grading, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting. We searched published and unpublished studies between 1969 and March 2019 from LMICs. We included papers that compared usual practice with QICs alone or combined with other interventions. Pairs of reviewers independently selected and assessed the risk of bias and extracted data of included studies. To estimate strategy effectiveness from a single study comparison, we used the median effect size (MES) in the comparison for outcomes in the same outcome group. The primary analysis evaluated each strategy group with a weighted median and interquartile range (IQR) of MES values. In secondary analyses, standard random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the weighted mean MES and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean MES of each strategy group. This review is registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42017078108.ResultsTwenty-nine studies were included; most (21/29, 72.4%) were interrupted time series studies. Evidence quality was generally low to very low. Among studies involving health facility-based health care providers (HCPs), for “QIC only”, effectiveness varied widely across outcome groups and tended to have little effect for patient health outcomes (median MES less than 2 percentage points for percentage and continuous outcomes). For “QIC plus training”, effectiveness might be very high for patient health outcomes (for continuous outcomes, median MES 111.6 percentage points, range: 96.0 to 127.1) and HCP practice outcomes (median MES 52.4 to 63.4 percentage points for continuous and percentage outcomes, respectively). The only study of lay HCPs, which used “QIC plus training”, showed no effect on patient care-seeking behaviors (MES -0.9 percentage points), moderate effects on non-care-seeking patient behaviors (MES 18.7 percentage points), and very large effects on HCP practice outcomes (MES 50.4 percentage points).ConclusionsThe effectiveness of QICs varied considerably in LMICs. QICs combined with other invention components, such as training, tended to be more effective than QICs alone. The low evidence quality and large effect sizes for QIC plus training justify additional high-quality studies assessing this approach in LMICs.
To explore attitudes of physicians attending births in the public and private sectors and at the managerial level toward cesarean birth in Nicaragua. A qualitative study was conducted consisting of four focus groups with 17 physicians and nine in-depth interviews with decision-makers. Although study participants listed many advantages of vaginal birth and disadvantages of cesarean birth, they perceived that the increase in the cesarean birth rate in Nicaragua has resulted in a reduction in perinatal morbidity and mortality. They ascribed high cesarean birth rates to a web of interrelated provider, patient, and health system factors. They identified five actions that would facilitate a reduction in the number of unnecessary cesarean operations: establishing standards and protocols; preparing women and their families for labor and childbirth; incorporating cesarean birth rate monitoring and audit systems into quality assurance activities at the facility level; strengthening the movement to humanize birth; and promoting community-based interventions to educate women and families about the benefits of vaginal birth. Study participants believe that by performing cesarean operations they are providing the best quality of care feasible within their context. They do not perceive problems with their current practice. The identified causes of unnecessary cesarean operations in Nicaragua are multifactorial, so it appears that a multi-layered strategy is needed to safely reduce cesarean birth rates. The recent Nicaraguan Ministry of Health guidance to promote parto humanizado ("humanization of childbirth") could serve as the basis for a collaborative effort among health care professionals, government, and consumer advocates to reduce the number of unnecessary cesarean births in Nicaragua.
BackgroundThe impact of untreated syphilis during pregnancy on neonatal health remains a major public health threat worldwide. Given the high prevalence of syphilis during pregnancy in Zambia and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Preventive Congenital Syphilis Trial (PCS Trial), a cluster randomized trial, was proposed to increase same-day screening and treatment of syphilis during antenatal care visits. To design an accepted and feasible intervention, we conducted a qualitative formative research. Our objective was to identify context-specific barriers and facilitators to the implementation of antenatal screening and treatment during pregnancy.MethodsQualitative research included in-depth semi-structured interviews with clinic administrators, group interviews with health care providers, and focus groups with pregnant women in primary care clinics (PCCs) in Kinshasa (DRC) and Lusaka (Zambia).ResultsA total of 112 individuals participated in the interviews and focus groups. Barriers for the implementation of syphilis testing and treatment were identified at the a) system level: fragmentation of the health system, existence of ANC guidelines in conflict with proposed intervention, poor accessibility of clinics (geographical and functional), staff and product shortages at the PCCs; b) healthcare providers’ level: lack of knowledge and training about evolving best practices, reservations regarding same-day screening and treatment; c) Pregnant women level: late enrollment in ANC, lack of knowledge about consequences and treatment of syphilis, and stigma. Based on these results, we developed recommendations for the design of the PCS Trial intervention.ConclusionThis research allowed us to identify barriers and facilitators to improve the feasibility and acceptability of a behavioral intervention. Formative research is a critical step in designing appropriate and effective interventions by closing the “know-do gap”.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2494-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.