Introduction: The prescribing of opioids has increased internationally in developed countries in recent decades within primary and secondary care. The majority of patients with chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) are managed by their general practitioner (GP). Recent qualitative studies have examined the issue of opioid prescribing for CNMP from a GP viewpoint. The aim of this study is to identify and synthesise the qualitative literature describing the factors influencing the nature and extent of opioid prescribing by GPs for patients with CNMP in primary care. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 1986 to February 2018. The full text of included articles was reviewed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative research. The papers were coded by two researchers and themes organised using Thematic Network Analysis. Themes were constructed in a hierarchical manner, basic themes informed organising themes which informed global themes. A theoretical model was derived using global themes to explain the interplay between factors influencing opioid prescribing decisions. Results: From 7020 records, 21 full text papers were assessed, and 13 studies included in the synthesis; 9 were from the United States, 3 from the United Kingdom and 1 from Canada. Four global themes emerged: suspicion, risk, agreement and encompassing systems level factors. These global themes are inter-related and capture the complex decision-making processes underlying opioid prescribing whereby the physician both consciously and unconsciously quantifies the risk–benefit relationship associated with initiating or continuing an opioid prescription. Conclusion: Recognising the inherent complexity of opioid prescribing and the limitations of healthcare systems is crucial to developing opioid stewardship strategies to combat the rise in opioid prescription morbidity and mortality.
IntroductionFifteen million babies are born prematurely, before 37 weeks gestational age, globally. More than 80% of these are in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. 35% of all deaths in the first month of life are due to prematurity and the neonatal mortality rate is eight times higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in Europe. Early Warning Scores (EWS) are a way of recording vital signs using standardised charts to easily identify adverse clinical signs and escalate care appropriately. A range of EWS have been developed for neonates, though none in LMICs. This paper reports the findings of early work to examine if the use of EWS is feasible in LMICs.MethodsWe conducted an observational study to understand current practices for monitoring of preterm infants at a large national referral hospital in Nairobi, Kenya. Using hospital records, data were collected over an 8-week period in 2019 on all live born infants born at <37 weeks and/or <2500 g (n=294, 255 mothers) in the first week of life. Using a chart adopted from the EWS developed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine, we plotted infants’ vital signs. In addition, we held group discussions with stakeholders in Kenya to examine opinions on use of EWS.ResultsRecording of vital signs was variable; only 63% of infants had at least one temperature recorded and 53% had at least one heart rate and respiratory rate recorded. Stakeholders liked the traffic-light system and simplicity of the chart, though recognised challenges, such as staffing levels and ability to print in colour, to its adoption.ConclusionEWS may standardise documentation and identify infants who are at higher risk of an adverse outcome. However, human and non-human resource issues would need to be explored further before development of an EWS for LMICs.
ObjectivesPrematurity is the leading cause of global neonatal and infant mortality. Many babies could survive by the provision of essential newborn care. This qualitative study was conducted in order to understand, from a family and professional perspective, the barriers and facilitators to essential newborn care. The study will inform the development of an early warning score for preterm and low birthweight infants in low and middle income countries (LMICs).SettingSingle-centre, tertiary referral hospital in Nairobi, Kenya.ParticipantsNineteen mothers and family members participated in focus group discussions and 20 key-informant interviews with professionals (healthcare professionals and policy-makers) were conducted. Focus group participants were identified via postnatal wards, the newborn unit and Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC) unit. Convenience and purposive sampling was used to identify professionals.Outcome measuresUnderstanding facilitators and barriers to provision of essential newborn care in preterm infants.ResultsFrom 27 themes, three global themes emerged from the data: mothers’ physical and psychological needs, system pillars and KMC.ConclusionMeeting mothers’ needs in the care of their babies is important to mothers, family members and professionals, and deserves greater attention. Functioning system pillars depended on a standardised approach to care and low cost, universally applicable interventions are needed to support the existing care structure. KMC was effective in both meeting mothers’ needs, supporting existing care structures and also provided a space for the resolution of the dialectical relationship between families and hospital procedures. Lessons learnt from the implementation of KMC could be applied to the development of an early warning score in LMICs.
Aims To investigate childbearing women's views, experiences and decision‐making related to epidural analgesia in labour. Design Mixed‐methods systematic review. Data Sources A comprehensive literature search was implemented across Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE from 2000 to September 2018. The literature search was undertaken in January 2018 and updated in September 2018. Thirty papers were selected. Results Four overarching synthesized findings were identified: (a) choice; (b) pain management experience; (c) lack of information; and (d) information provision and consent. Review Methods Quality appraisal was conducted using JBI levels of evidence and other established tools. NVivo was used to independently dual code and thematically synthesize qualitative data. A narrative synthesis of the quantitative findings from the included studies was undertaken. The GRADE‐CERQual approach was used to assess confidence in the review findings based on the qualitative data. A set of integrated mixed‐methods synthesized findings was produced. Conclusion Recommendations for practice based on the systematic review findings are that midwives should dedicate time to discuss epidural with women and birth partners, ideally during the second or third trimester of pregnancy, asking women what coping strategies or pain relief they have been considering, if any. The factors which may influence the woman's choice of epidural, including pain threshold, ability to cope with pain, timing of epidural and length of labour should be continuously evaluated during labour. The midwife should remain with women after an epidural has been sited, demonstrating understanding of the woman's choice and providing an opportunity for discussion of plans for the remaining labour and birth. Impact The findings of this systematic review can inform both healthcare professionals and service users on various aspects of the decision‐making process about the use of epidural analgesia in labour. Data can be transferable to similar settings in high‐income countries.
Aims To evaluate the effectiveness of non‐pharmacological non‐invasive supportive interventions for impacts on women's comfort and well‐being during induction of labour. Design A quantitative systematic review without meta‐analysis. Data Sources Databases were searched for primary research published in English between 2000–2019: AMED, CINAHL, Medline, Maternity and Infant Care database, PsycINFO, and ProQuest. The quality of studies was evaluated using JBI levels of evidence and established critical appraisal tools. Studies describing measures of comfort, coping, and well‐being for women during induction of labour were included. Results Two articles met the criteria for inclusion. There is limited evidence to suggest that women having outpatient cervical priming were more satisfied with their experience than women having inpatient cervical priming and that outpatient cervical priming did not increase women's anxiety. A specifically designed information brochure explaining the induction process improved women's knowledge and understanding. Review Methods The quantitative systematic review followed the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care guidance. Quality appraisal was conducted using JBI levels of evidence, Cochrane Risk of Bias, and other established tools. A narrative description of the quantitative data was undertaken. There was insufficient evidence to perform a narrative synthesis or meta‐analysis due to the nature of the study designs and insufficient outcome data. Conclusions Globally, the number of women having an induction of labour is increasing and there is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of supportive interventions. Components of supportive care for women having induction of labour require urgent evaluation. Measurement tools which capture the complexity of supportive care for women having induction of labour need to be developed and validated. Impact This is the first review to evaluate non‐pharmacological, non‐invasive supportive interventions for women having induction of labour. The findings of this review identify the urgent need to develop an evidence base for effective supportive.
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.