| Literature DB >> 29304812 |
Hannah L Nathan1, Helena Boene2, Khatia Munguambe2,3, Esperança Sevene2,3, David Akeju4, Olalekan O Adetoro5, Umesh Charanthimath6, Mrutyunjaya B Bellad6, Annemarie de Greeff7, John Anthony8, David R Hall9, Wilhelm Steyn9, Marianne Vidler10, Peter von Dadelszen7, Lucy C Chappell7, Jane Sandall7, Andrew H Shennan7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vital signs measurement can identify pregnant and postpartum women who require urgent treatment or referral. In low-resource settings, healthcare workers have limited access to accurate vital signs measuring devices suitable for their environment and training. The CRADLE Vital Signs Alert (VSA) is a novel device measuring blood pressure and pulse that is accurate in pregnancy and designed for low-resource settings. Its traffic light early warning system alerts healthcare workers to the need for escalation of care for women with hypertension, haemorrhage or sepsis. This study evaluated the usability and acceptability of the CRADLE VSA device.Entities:
Keywords: Accuracy; Blood pressure; Early warning system; Haemorrhage; Low- and middle-income countries; Pre-eclampsia; Pregnancy; Qualitative methods; Sepsis; Vital signs
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29304812 PMCID: PMC5756409 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-017-0450-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Interviews and focus group discussions distribution across sites
| Sites: | Mozambique (24 month CLIP trial) | India (33 month CLIP trial) | Nigeria (33 month CLIP trial) | South Africa (12 month CRADLE study) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Device | Prototype CRADLE VSA | Prototype CRADLE VSA | CRADLE VSA | CRADLE VSA |
| Facility level | Primary health centre and home | Primary health centre and home | Primary health centre | Tertiary hospital |
| Number of study areas | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Participants | Agente Communitarios de Saude (APEs) | Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs) and Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) | Community Health Extension Workers (CHEWs) | Healthcare assistants/students |
| Nurses | Nurses | Nurses | Nurses | |
| Doctors | ||||
| Pregnant women | Pregnant women and family members | |||
| Phase 1 | ||||
| Timing from start of trial/study | 3 months | 3 months | 3 months | 3 months |
| Number of interviews | 29 | 10 | 12 | 25 |
| Number of focus groups | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Phase 2 | ||||
| Time from start of trial/study | 12 months | 12 months | 12 months | 9 months |
| Number of interviews | 42 | 10 | 12 | 15 |
| Number of focus groups | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
In-depth interview participants’ demographic information
| Characteristics | Healthcare worker (%) | Other (%)a
|
|---|---|---|
| Country | ||
| Mozambique | 35 (31%) | 36 (88%) |
| India | 20 (18%) | 0 (0%) |
| Nigeria | 19 (17%) | 5 (12%) |
| South Africa | 40 (35%) | 0 (0%) |
| Facility level | ||
| Community | 40 (35%) | NA |
| Primary health centre | 34 (30%) | NA |
| Hospital | 40 (35%) | NA |
| Age (years) | ||
| 15–20 | 1 (1%) | 6 (15%) |
| 21–30 | 36 (32%) | 16 (39%) |
| 31–40 | 37 (32%) | 15 (37%) |
| 41–50 | 25 (22%) | 2 (5%) |
| 51–60 | 13 (11%) | 2 (5%) |
| Missing | 2 (2%) | 0 (0) |
| Gender | ||
| Female | 99 (87%) | 39 (95%) |
| Male | 14 (12%) | 2 (5%) |
| Missing | 1 (1%) | 0 (0%) |
| Years of experience | ||
| 0–5 | 41 (36%) | NA |
| 6–10 | 38 (33%) | NA |
| 11+ | 27 (24%) | NA |
| Missing | 8 (1%) | NA |
a33 pregnant women, 8 family members
Focus group participants’ demographic information
| Characteristics | Healthcare workers (%) |
|---|---|
| Country | |
| Nigeria | 33 (66%) |
| South Africa | 17 (34%) |
| Facility level | |
| Primary health centre | 33 (66%) |
| Hospital | 17 (34%) |
| Age (years) | |
| 15–20 | 0 (0) |
| 21–30 | 8 (16%) |
| 31–40 | 17 (34%) |
| 41–50 | 18 (36%) |
| 51–60 | 5 (10%) |
| 60+ | 2 (4%) |
| Gender | |
| Female | 50 (100%) |
| Male | 0 (0%) |
| Years of experience | |
| 0–5 | 10 (20%) |
| 6–10 | 10 (20%) |
| 11+ | 27 (54%) |
| Missing | 3 (6%) |