| Literature DB >> 35473622 |
Helena Kilander1,2,3, Maja Weinryb2,4, Malin Vikström5, Kerstin Petersson5,6, Elin C Larsson7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immigrant women use less effective contraceptive methods and have a higher risk of unintended pregnancies. Maternal health care services offer a central opportunity to strengthen contraceptive services, especially among immigrants. This study aimed to evaluate a Quality Improvement Collaborative QIC. Its objective was to improve contraceptive services for immigrant women postpartum, through health care professionals' (HCPs) counselling and a more effective choice of contraceptive methods.Entities:
Keywords: Contraception; Coproduction; Counselling; Family planning; Maternal health care; Postpartum; Quality improvement; System performance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35473622 PMCID: PMC9040323 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-07965-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.908
Fig. 1Timeline for the quality improvement collaborative, user involvement and the case study data collection 2018-2019
Programme for Learning Seminars (LS) during Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) 2018–2019
| Learning Seminars (LS) | Themes for the seminar | Activities at the seminar | Homework and activities after the seminar |
|---|---|---|---|
(Dec 2018) | Risk-factors for unintended pregnancy Best practice contraceptive counselling postpartum Introduction of driver diagram Introduction to the tool Plan-Do-Study-Act How to work in a team in a QIC | Identify obstacles in; -providing contraceptives services postpartum -registering women’s choice of contraceptive method postpartum in the SPR Introduction to visual tool illustrating the effectiveness of contraceptive methods Discuss and set goals for the QIC: What do we want to accomplish? | Continue to identify possible obstacles and possibilities at each MHC Continue to register women’s choice of contraceptives postpartum in the SPR Test visual tool illustrating the effectiveness of different contraceptive methods Test offer information about contraceptive methods during gestational weeks 36–38 Test book the postpartum visit during pregnancy. |
(March 2019) | Share experiences of registering women’s choice of contraceptive method in the SPR Reflect on how to use RLP in the conversation about contraception Share experiences of improvement activities Choose future testing areas | Continue to register women’s choice of contraceptives postpartum Continue using the visual tool Continue offering information about contraceptive methods and offer prescriptions during gestational weeks 36–38 Test book appointments for contraceptive services postpartum Test to develop a stock of LARC | |
(June 2019) | Share experiences of register women’s choice of contraceptive method postpartum Share experiences of improvement activities Reflect on users’ views in the QIC | Continue to register women’s choice of contraceptives postpartum Continue using the visual tool Continue offering information about contraceptive methods and prescription during gestational weeks 36–38 Continue to book appointments for contraceptive services postpartum Maintain the stock of LARC | |
(Oct 2019) | Reflect on users’ views in the QIC How to keep on reaching the goal? How can we create sustainability? | Continue to register women’s choice of contraceptives postpartum Continue using the visual tool Continue offering information about Contraceptive methods during gestational weeks 36–38 Continue to book appointments for contraceptive counselling postpartum Maintain the stock of LARC |
LS Learning Seminar, LARC Long-Acting Reversible Contraception, RLP Reproductive Life Planning, SPR Swedish Pregnancy Register, MHC Maternal Health Clinic, QIC Quality Improvement Collaborative
Fig. 2The quality improvement collaborative based on the Driver diagram [34], outlining the four main areas for evidence-based changes
Background characteristics among the women visiting maternal health clinics (MHCs) and registered in the SPR during the QIC
| Characteristic | Number of women (%) |
|---|---|
| MHC a | 346 (61) |
| MHC b | 129 (23) |
| MHC c | 92 (16) |
| 0 | 234 (41) |
| 1 | 188 (33) |
| 2 | 114 (20) |
| 3+ | 31 (6) |
| No education/less than 9 years | 6 (1) |
| Primary school (9 years) | 34 (6) |
| Secondary school (12 years) | 230 (41) |
| University | 251 (44) |
| Missing | 46 (8) |
| Sweden | 271 (48) |
| Middle-East/North-Africa | 152 (27) |
| Other | 144 (25) |
MHCs Maternal Health Clinics, SPR Swedish Pregnancy Register, QIC Quality Improvement Collaborative
Proportion of women choosing a more effective contraceptive method, by LS, all women (total) and immigrants
| Baseline/LS1 | LS2 | LS3 | LS4 | Increase in more effective method in % | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less effective/ no methodb | More effective methodsa | Less effective/ | More effective methodsa | Less effective/ no methodb | More effective methodsa | Less effective/ no methodb | More effective methodsa | LS4 vs. LS1 | LS3 vs. LS1 | LS2 vs. LS1 | |
| 51 (70) | 30 (48) | 34 (45) | 45 (53) | ||||||||
| 98 (64) | 49 (45) | 66 (46) | 80 (49) | ||||||||
aMore effective contraception was defined as short-acting reversible contraception (SARC), including contraceptive pills, the combined hormonal contraceptive patch and ring, progestin only injectables and long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including subdermal implant, intrauterine devices and levonorgestrel intrauterine systems. bLess effective methods were defined as a choice of methods such as barrier methods, withdrawal, natural family planning or choice of no method at all
cChi2-test was used to calculate p-values regarding the difference in choice of more effective contraceptive method between LS 4 and 1
LS learning seminars, QIC Quality improvement collaborative