Midwifery · 2024
Exploring the acceptability of a risk prediction tool for cardiometabolic risk (gestational diabetes and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy) for use in early pregnancy: A qualitative study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lang Sarah, McIntosh Jennifer G, Enticott Joanne, Goldstein Rebecca, Baker Susanne, McGowan Margaret, Cooray Shamil, Du Lan, Reddy Anjana, Harrison Cheryce L, Thong Eleanor, De Silva Kushan, Teede Helena, Moran Lisa J, Lim Siew
Аннотация
PROBLEM/ BACKGROUND: The acceptability of providing women with personalised cardiometabolic risk information using risk prediction tools early in pregnancy is not well understood.
AIM: To explore women's and healthcare professionals' perspectives of the acceptability of a prognostic, composite risk prediction tool for cardiometabolic risk (gestational diabetes and/or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy) for use in early pregnancy.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the acceptability of cardiometabolic risk prediction tools, preferences for risk communication and considerations for implementation into antenatal care. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability informed interview questions. Transcripts were thematically analysed.
FINDINGS: Women ≤24 weeks' gestation (n = 13) and healthcare professionals (n = 8), including midwives (n = 2), general practitioners (n = 2), obstetricians (n = 2), an endocrinologist (n = 1) and cardiologist (n = 1) participated. Participants indicated that providing personalised risk information is only appropriate when preventative measures can be initiated to mitigate risks. Differentiating the risk for each condition (single risk outputs) was often preferred to composite risk outputs to enable targeted monitoring and management. Defining conditions and risks to mother/baby, visually depicting personalised risk scores, and providing clear, patient-centred clinical management plans were recommended. Supportive clinical policy changes, staff engagement/training, and integration into electronic health records were suggested to facilitate uptake into routine antenatal care.
CONCLUSION: Women and healthcare professionals suggested that early pregnancy cardiometabolic risk prediction tools may be acceptable when preventative interventions are available to reduce risks. Risk prediction tools with integrated patient-centred education materials may promote timely access and engagement with preventative interventions to optimise women's current and future health.
AIM: To explore women's and healthcare professionals' perspectives of the acceptability of a prognostic, composite risk prediction tool for cardiometabolic risk (gestational diabetes and/or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy) for use in early pregnancy.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the acceptability of cardiometabolic risk prediction tools, preferences for risk communication and considerations for implementation into antenatal care. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability informed interview questions. Transcripts were thematically analysed.
FINDINGS: Women ≤24 weeks' gestation (n = 13) and healthcare professionals (n = 8), including midwives (n = 2), general practitioners (n = 2), obstetricians (n = 2), an endocrinologist (n = 1) and cardiologist (n = 1) participated. Participants indicated that providing personalised risk information is only appropriate when preventative measures can be initiated to mitigate risks. Differentiating the risk for each condition (single risk outputs) was often preferred to composite risk outputs to enable targeted monitoring and management. Defining conditions and risks to mother/baby, visually depicting personalised risk scores, and providing clear, patient-centred clinical management plans were recommended. Supportive clinical policy changes, staff engagement/training, and integration into electronic health records were suggested to facilitate uptake into routine antenatal care.
CONCLUSION: Women and healthcare professionals suggested that early pregnancy cardiometabolic risk prediction tools may be acceptable when preventative interventions are available to reduce risks. Risk prediction tools with integrated patient-centred education materials may promote timely access and engagement with preventative interventions to optimise women's current and future health.