Literature DB >> 29283211

Differentiating Research, Quality Improvement, and Case Studies to Ethically Incorporate Pregnant Women.

Julia C Phillippi, Katherine E Hartmann.   

Abstract

Pregnant women have been called therapeutic orphans because data supporting common interventions, medications, health teaching, and models of care are meager. The generation of quality evidence benefits from proactive approaches that ensure ethical standards are met to protect participants. The purpose of this article is to differentiate among health care, quality improvement, and research and to discuss ethical involvement of women who are pregnant and potentially childbearing in these initiatives. Health care is provided to protect and improve individual health. Quality improvement aims to enhance delivery of care for all those receiving care in particular settings. Research, whether retrospective or prospective, is designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge. This review includes vignettes to distinguish between research, quality improvement, and case study dissemination and to highlight the value of publication of information with applicability beyond a single site. As a community, perinatal care providers will be able to contribute more evidence to guide care if they err on the side of seeking institutional review board approval for activities that examine the care and outcomes of pregnant women and the fetus. Traditional research activities, including clinical trials, remain crucial. However, to fill gaps in knowledge, we must expedite our ability to report informative cases, examine clinical data, share lessons learned during quality improvement campaigns, and publish and disseminate these findings. Accelerating improvements in care demands expansion of the evidence base.
© 2017 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical trial; ethics; ethics committees; health services research; midwifery; pregnancy; quality improvement; research

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29283211      PMCID: PMC7608624          DOI: 10.1111/jmwh.12673

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health        ISSN: 1526-9523            Impact factor:   2.388


  35 in total

Review 1.  Showcasing differences between quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and research.

Authors:  Maria R Shirey; Sheila L Hauck; Jennifer L Embree; Tracy J Kinner; Gina L Schaar; Lori A Phillips; Shelley R Ashby; Constance F Swenty; Isabella A McCool
Journal:  J Contin Educ Nurs       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 1.224

2.  Enrolling pregnant women in research--lessons from the H1N1 influenza pandemic.

Authors:  Sara F Goldkind; Leyla Sahin; Beverly Gallauresi
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-17       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  Mary Jane Welch; Rachel Lally; Jennifer E Miller; Stephanie Pittman; Lynda Brodsky; Arthur L Caplan; Gina Uhlenbrauck; Darcy M Louzao; James H Fischer; Benjamin Wilfond
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Maternal mortality and morbidity in the United States: where are we now?

Authors:  Andreea A Creanga; Cynthia J Berg; Jean Y Ko; Sherry L Farr; Van T Tong; F Carol Bruce; William M Callaghan
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Should pregnant women be included in phase IV clinical drug trials?

Authors:  Gerald G Briggs; Janine E Polifka; Katherine L Wisner; Eric Gervais; Richard K Miller; Anick Berard; Gideon Koren; Alicia Forinash; Craig V Towers
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications.

Authors:  D Casarett; J H Karlawish; J Sugarman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-05-03       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  P S Appelbaum; L H Roth; C W Lidz; P Benson; W Winslade
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 2.683

8.  Obstetric Care Consensus No. 2: Levels of maternal care.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Maternal Hemorrhage Quality Improvement Collaborative Lessons.

Authors:  Audrey Lyndon; Valerie Cape
Journal:  MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 1.412

View more
  1 in total

1.  Mapping the landscape of global programmes to evaluate health interventions in pregnancy: the need for harmonised approaches, standards and tools.

Authors:  Patrick L F Zuber; Allisyn C Moran; Doris Chou; Françoise Renaud; Christine Halleux; Juan Pablo Peña-Rosas; Kavitha Viswanathan; Eve Lackritz; Robert Jakob; Elizabeth Mason; Smaragda Lamprianou; Christine Guillard-Maure
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2018-10-15
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.