Literature DB >> 22877764

Mother knows best: developing a consumer led, evidence informed, research agenda for maternity care.

Helen Cheyne1, Christine McCourt, Karen Semple.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The principles of evidence-based practice and involvement of consumers in healthcare are well established. However, consumers are rarely involved in decisions about what evidence is actually required and this may result in a mismatch between research undertaken and issues of importance to those who use the health services. This may be particularly evident in maternity care where disease focused research funding priorities may not address aspects of care which are important to the majority of women. Working with service users to generate possible future research questions may facilitate more women centred research.
METHOD: the project used a three stage participatory approach in a diverse sample of localities across Scotland. Twelve pre-existing, community-based groups of maternity service users participated with between 8 and 20 mothers in each. Each group met twice. At the first meeting group discussion identified topics and questions. A rapid literature review of each topic was conducted and used to develop a document summarising evidence to facilitate discussion at the second meeting. The group then prioritised topic areas and questions using a modified Nominal Group Technique.
FINDINGS: analysis identified key topics and questions which were raised and prioritised by a number of the groups; a 'top ten' list of priority topics was readily identified, these included aspects of postnatal care, antenatal care, communication and information giving and risk. Approximately 200 individual questions were asked by women, for example: What is the impact of a bad birth experience on postnatal physical and psychological health? What is the best way of providing antenatal classes/preparation classes? What is the effect of women feeling not listened to in labour? How can fathers be given effective preparation for coping with labour and birth and supporting their partner? DISCUSSION: this project demonstrates that women are well able to articulate researchable questions when given the opportunity and support to do so. Although a wide range of topics and questions were identified there were remarkable areas of consensus and clear areas of priority for women, these should be used to inform development of women centred research.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22877764     DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.06.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Midwifery        ISSN: 0266-6138            Impact factor:   2.372


  8 in total

1.  Involving seldom-heard groups in a PPI process to inform the design of a proposed trial on the use of probiotics to prevent preterm birth: a case study.

Authors:  Juliet Rayment; Rosemary Lanlehin; Christine McCourt; Shahid M Husain
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2017-05-25

Review 2.  Antenatal care trial interventions: a systematic scoping review and taxonomy development of care models.

Authors:  Andrew Symon; Jan Pringle; Soo Downe; Vanora Hundley; Elaine Lee; Fiona Lynn; Alison McFadden; Jenny McNeill; Mary J Renfrew; Mary Ross-Davie; Edwin van Teijlingen; Heather Whitford; Fiona Alderdice
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  Involvement of persons with lived experience of a prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart defect: an explorative study to gain insights into perspectives on future research.

Authors:  Tommy Carlsson; Ulla Melander Marttala; Barbro Wadensten; Gunnar Bergman; Elisabet Mattsson
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2016-12-15

4.  Missed opportunities for impact in patient and carer involvement: a mixed methods case study of research priority setting.

Authors:  R Snow; J C Crocker; S Crowe
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2015-08-04

5.  Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial.

Authors:  Ulla-Britt Wennerholm; Sissel Saltvedt; Anna Wessberg; Mårten Alkmark; Christina Bergh; Sophia Brismar Wendel; Helena Fadl; Maria Jonsson; Lars Ladfors; Verena Sengpiel; Jan Wesström; Göran Wennergren; Anna-Karin Wikström; Helen Elden; Olof Stephansson; Henrik Hagberg
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-11-20

6.  Cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study: a protocol.

Authors:  Sarah Jane Stock; Amarnath Bhide; Heather Richardson; Mairead Black; Cassandra Yuill; Mairi Harkness; Maggie Reid; Fiona Wee; Helen Cheyne; Christine McCourt; Dikshyanta Rana; Kathleen Anne Boyd; Julia Sanders; Neelam Heera; Jane Huddleston; Fiona Denison; Dharmintra Pasupathy; Neena Modi; Gordon Smith; John Norrie
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Squaring the circle: a priority-setting method for evidence-based service development, reconciling research with multiple stakeholder views.

Authors:  Rebecca Hutten; Glenys D Parry; Thomas Ricketts; Jo Cooke
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Involving consumers and the community in the development of a diagnostic instrument for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in Australia.

Authors:  Heather M Jones; Anne McKenzie; Sue Miers; Elizabeth Russell; Rochelle E Watkins; Janet M Payne; Lorian Hayes; Maureen Carter; Heather D'Antoine; Jane Latimer; Amanda Wilkins; Raewyn C Mutch; Lucinda Burns; James P Fitzpatrick; Jane Halliday; Colleen M O'Leary; Elizabeth Peadon; Elizabeth J Elliott; Carol Bower
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2013-07-30
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.