Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Decision-making and evidence use during the process of prenatal record review in Canada: a multiphase qualitative study

Authors: Sonia Semenic, Nancy Edwards, Shahirose Premji, Joanne Olson, Beverly Williams, Phyllis Montgomery

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Prenatal records are potentially powerful tools for the translation of best-practice evidence into routine prenatal care. Although all jurisdictions in Canada use standardized prenatal records to guide care and provide data for health surveillance, their content related to risk factors such as maternal smoking and alcohol use varies widely. Literature is lacking on how prenatal records are developed or updated to integrate research evidence. This multiphase project aimed to identify key contextual factors influencing decision-making and evidence use among Canadian prenatal record committees (PRCs), and formulate recommendations for the prenatal record review process in Canada.

Methods

Phase 1 comprised key informant interviews with PRC leaders across 10 Canadian jurisdictions. Phase 2, was a qualitative comparative case study of PRC factors influencing evidence-use and decision-making in five selected jurisdictions. Interview data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Phase 3 involved a dissemination workshop with key stakeholders to review and refine recommendations derived from Phases 1 and 2.

Results

Prenatal record review processes differed considerably across Canadian jurisdictions. PRC decision-making was complex, revealing the competing functions of the prenatal record as a clinical guide, documentation tool and data source. Internal contextual factors influencing evidence use included PRC resources to conduct evidence reviews; group composition and dynamics; perceived function of the prenatal record; and expert opinions. External contextual factors included concerns about user buy-in; health system capacities; and pressures from public health stakeholders. Our recommendations highlight the need for: broader stakeholder involvement and explicit use of decision-support strategies to support the revision process; a national template of evidence-informed changes that can be used across jurisdictions; consideration of both clinical and surveillance functions of the prenatal record; and dissemination plans to communicate prenatal record modifications.

Conclusions

Decision-making related to prenatal record content involves a negotiated effort to balance research evidence with the needs and preferences of prenatal care providers, health system capacities as well as population health priorities. The development of a national template for prenatal records would reduce unnecessary duplication of PRC work and enhance the consistency of prenatal care delivery and perinatal surveillance data across Canada.
Literature
1.
Peoples-Sheps MD, Kalsbeek WD, Siegel E, Dewees C, Rogers M, Schwartz R. Prenatal records: a national survey of content. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;164(2):514–21.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Dexheimer JW, Talbot TR, Sanders DL, Rosenbloom ST, Aronsky D. Prompting clinicians about preventive care measures: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(3):311–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Phelan ST. The prenatal medical record: purpose, organization and the debate of print versus electronic. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2008;35(3):355–68.CrossRef
5.
Bernstein PS, Farinelli C, Merkatz IR. Using an electronic medical record to improve communication within a prenatal care network. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(3):607–12.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Hunter B, Segrott J. Re-mapping client journeys and professional identities: a review of the literature on clinical pathways. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;45(4):608–25.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. A National Birthing Initiative for Canada an Inclusive, Integrated and Comprehensive pan-Canadian Framework for Sustainable Family-Centered Maternity and Newborn Care. Ottawa, Ont: Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada; 2008.
9.
Semenic S, Edwards N. Do Canadian prenatal records support evidence-based practices to reduce maternal smoking? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006;28(5):368–72.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Premji SS, Semenic S. Do Canadian prenatal record forms integrate evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis of a FASD? Can J Public Health. 2009;100(4):274–80.PubMed
11.
Devries KM, Greaves LJ. Smoking cessation for pregnant women: current Canadian programs and future development. Can J Public Health. 2004;95(4):278–80.PubMed
12.
Chudley AE, Conry J, Cook JL, Loock C, Rosales T, LeBlanc N. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: Canadian guidelines for diagnosis. CMAJ. 2005;172(5 SUPPL):S1–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
14.
Hamisu S, Wilson R. Epidemiology of prenatal smoking and perinatal outcomes. Early Hum Dev. 2007;83(11):713–20.CrossRef
15.
Roberts G, Nanson J. Best practices: fetal alcohol syndrome/fetal alcohol effects and the effects of other substance use during pregnancy. Health Canada: Ottawa. 2001.
16.
Hunt JM, Lumley J. Are recommendations about routine antenatal care in Australia consistent and evidence-based? Med J Aust. 2002;176(6):255–9.PubMed
17.
Haertsch M, Campbell E, Sanson-Fisher R. What is recommended for healthy women during pregnancy? A comparison of seven prenatal clinical practice guideline documents. Birth. 1999;26(1):24–30.CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
20.
Hutchinson AM, Johnston L. An observational study of health professionals’ use of evidence to inform the development of clinical management tools. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(16):2203–11.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Raine R, Sanderson C, Hutchings A, Carter S, Larkin K, Black N. An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline development. Lancet. 2004;364(9432):429–37.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Pagliari C, Grimshaw J. Impact of group structure and process on multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline development: an observational study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2002;8(2):145–53.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Pagliari C, Grimshaw J, Eccles M. The potential influence of small group processes on guideline development. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001;7(2):165–73.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Moreira T. Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(9):1975–85.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Allen D. From boundary concept to boundary object: the practice and politics of care pathway development. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(3):354–61.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Niessen L, Grijseels E, Rutten F. The evidence-based approach in health policy and health care delivery. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(6):859–69.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Lemieux-Charles L, Black NA. The impact of context on evidence utilization: a framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(7):1811–24.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur REG. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(1):207–17.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994.
31.
Chang G. Alcohol-screening instruments for pregnant women. Alcohol Res Health. 2001;25(3):204–9.PubMed
32.
Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2007;62(1):107–15.CrossRef
33.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.
34.
Atkins L, Smith JA, Kelly MP, Michie S. The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: a qualitative study of views from the inside. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Hunter B. Implementing a national policy initiative to support normal birth: lessons from the All wales clinical pathway for normal labour. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55(3):226–33.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, Schunemann HJ, Woolf S. Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci. 2012;7:60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Michie S, Berentson-Shaw J, Pilling S, Feder G, Dieppe P, Raine R, et al. Turning evidence into recommendations: protocol of a study guideline development groups. Implement Sci. 2007;2:29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Moreira T, May C, Mason J, Eccles M. A new method of analysis enabled a better understanding of clinical practice guideline development processes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(11):1199–206.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Becker M, Neugebauer EA, Eikermann M. Partial updating of clinical practice guidelines often makes more sense than full updating: a systematic review on methods and the development of an updating procedure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(1):33–45.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Martinez Garcia L, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Sola I, Haynes RB, Vandvik PO, Alonso-Coello P. Strategies for monitoring and updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2012;7:109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Greaves LJ, Poole N. Victimized or validated? responses to substance-using pregnant women. Canadian Woman Studies/Les cahiers de la femme. 2005;24(1):87–92.
42.
Committee on Ethics. At-risk drinking and illicit drug Use: ethical issues in obstetric and gynecologic practice. ACOG Committee Opinion. 2008;422:1–12.
43.
Garfield FB, Garfield JM. Clinical judgment and clinical practice guidelines. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(4):1050–60.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Metadata
Title
Decision-making and evidence use during the process of prenatal record review in Canada: a multiphase qualitative study
Authors
Sonia Semenic
Nancy Edwards
Shahirose Premji
Joanne Olson
Beverly Williams
Phyllis Montgomery
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0503-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2015 Go to the issue

Erratum

Erratum: Pregnancy complications and birth outcomes among women experiencing nausea only or nausea and vomiting during pregnancy in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study

Research article

Medication use during pregnancy, gestational age and date of delivery: agreement between maternal self-reports and health database information in a cohort

Research article

Lifestyle intervention to prevent excessive maternal weight gain: mother and infant follow-up at 12 months postpartum

Research article

“You cannot know if it’s a baby or not a baby”: uptake, provision and perceptions of antenatal care and routine antenatal ultrasound scanning in rural Kenya

Research article

Knowledge on preconceptional folic acid supplementation and intention to seek for preconception care among men and women in an urban city: a population-based cross-sectional study

Reviewer acknowledgement

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth reviewer acknowledgement 2014