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 Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Impacts of online and group perinatal education: a mixed methods study protocol for the optimization of perinatal health services

Authors: Geneviève Roch, Roxane Borgès Da Silva, Francine de Montigny, Holly O. Witteman, Tamarha Pierce, Sonia Semenic, Julie Poissant, André-Anne Parent, Deena White, Nils Chaillet, Carl-Ardy Dubois, Mathieu Ouimet, Geneviève Lapointe, Stéphane Turcotte, Alexandre Prud’homme, Geneviève Painchaud Guérard, Marie-Pierre Gagnon

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Prenatal education is a core component of perinatal care and services provided by health institutions. Whereas group prenatal education is the most common educational model, some health institutions have opted to implement online prenatal education to address accessibility issues as well as the evolving needs of future parents. Various studies have shown that prenatal education can be effective in acquisition of knowledge on labour and delivery, reducing psychological distress and maximising father’s involvement. However, these results may depend on educational material, organization, format and content. Furthermore, the effectiveness of online prenatal education compared to group prenatal education remains unclear in the literature. This project aims to evaluate the impacts of group prenatal education and online prenatal education on health determinants and users’ health status, as well as on networks of perinatal educational services maintained with community-based partners.

Methods

This multipronged mixed methods study uses a collaborative research approach to integrate and mobilize knowledge throughout the process. It consists of: 1) a prospective cohort study with quantitative data collection and qualitative interviews with future and new parents; and 2) a multiple case study integrating documentary sources and interviews with stakeholders involved in the implementation of perinatal information service networks and collaborations with community partners. Perinatal health indicators and determinants will be compared between prenatal education groups (group prenatal education and online prenatal education) and standard care without these prenatal education services (control group).

Discussion

This study will provide knowledge about the impact of online prenatal education as a new technological service delivery model compared to traditional group prenatal education. Indicators related to the complementarity of these interventions and those available in community settings will refine our understanding of regional perinatal services networks. Results will assist decision-making regarding service organization and delivery models of prenatal education services.

Protocol version

Version 1 (February 9 2018).
Literature
1.
Martin CJH, Robb Y. Women’s views about the importance of education in preparation for childbirth. Nurse Educ Pract. 2013;13(6):512–8.CrossRef
2.
3.
Edmonds JK, Cwiertniewicz T, Stoll K. Childbirth education prior to pregnancy? Survey findings of childbirth preferences and attitudes among young women. J Perinat Educ. 2015;24(2):93–101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
McArdle A, et al. How pregnant women learn about foetal movements: sources and preferences for information. Women Birth. 2015;28(1):54–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Criss S, et al. The role of health information sources in decision-making among Hispanic mothers during their Children’s first 1000 days of life. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19(11):2536–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Grimes HA, Forster DA, Newton MS. Sources of information used by women during pregnancy to meet their information needs. Midwifery. 2014;30(1):e26–33.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Buultjens M, Robinson P, Milgrom J. Online resources for new mothers: opportunities and challenges for perinatal health professionals. J Perinat Educ. 2012;21(2):99–111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
9.
Direction régionale de santé publique. L’information en période prénatale: Pratiques et besoins des mères, des pères et des intervenantes en santé et services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale. Québec: Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale; 2014. p. 150.
10.
Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. Politique de périnatalité 2008–2018. Québec: Direction des communications du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec; 2008. p. 174.
11.
Public Health Agency of Canada. The Canada prenatal nutrition program : a decade of promoting the health of mothers, babies and communities. Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Health; 2007.
12.
Tu A, Poissant J. Avis Sur les effets des rencontres prénatales de groupe. Montréal: Institut national de santé publique du Québec; 2015. p. 135.
13.
14.
Brixval CS, et al. The effect of antenatal education in small classes on obstetric and psycho-social outcomes - a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4:20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Ferguson S, Davis D, Browne J. Does antenatal education affect labour and birth? A structured review of the literature. Women Birth. 2013;26(1):e5–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Gagnon AJ, Sandall J. Individual or group antenatal education for childbirth or parenthood, or both Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2007. p. (3 Art. No.: CD002869).
17.
Martínez-Galiano JM, Delgado-Rodríguez M. Effectiveness of the professional who carries out the health education program: perinatal outcomes. Int J Womens Health. 2014;6:329–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. La santé et ses déterminants, mieux comprendre pour mieux agir. Québec: La Direction des communications du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux; 2012.
19.
Centre de ressources Meilleur départ. La prestation de l’éducation prénatale en Ontario : un résumé des conclusions de l’étude. Toronto (Ontario): Centre de ressources Meilleur départ; 2015.
20.
Salonen AH, et al. Effectiveness of an internet-based intervention enhancing Finnish parents’ parenting satisfaction and parenting self-efficacy during the postpartum period. Midwifery. 2011;27(6):832–41.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Salonen AH, et al. Impact of an internet-based intervention on Finnish mothers’ perceptions of parenting satisfaction, infant centrality and depressive symptoms during the postpartum year. Midwifery. 2014;30(1):112–22.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Huang MZ, et al. Evaluating effects of a prenatal web-based breastfeeding education programme in Taiwan. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(8):1571–9.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Mackert M, et al. Including men in prenatal health: the potential of e-health to improve birth outcomes. Telemed J E Health. 2015;21(3):207–12.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Lagan BM, Sinclair M, George Kernohan W. Internet use in pregnancy informs Women’s decision making: a web-based survey. Birth. 2010;37(2):106–15.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Huberty J, et al. Describing the use of the internet for health, physical activity, and nutrition information in pregnant women. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17(8):1363–72.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Larsson M. A descriptive study of the use of the internet by women seeking pregnancy-related information. Midwifery. 2009;25(1):14–20.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Niela-Vilen H, et al. Internet-based peer support for parents: a systematic integrative review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(11):1524–37.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Jones J, Barry MM. Exploring the relationship between synergy and partnership functioning factors in health promotion partnerships. Health Promot Int. 2011;26(4):408–20.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Turrini A, et al. Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Adm. 2010;88(2):528–50.CrossRef
32.
Provan KG, Milward HB. Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Adm Rev. 2001;61(4):414–23.CrossRef
33.
Provan KG, Milward HB. Health services delivery networks: what do we know and where should we be headed? Healthc Pap. 2006;7(2):32–6. discussion 68-75CrossRefPubMed
34.
Baumbusch JL, et al. Pursuing common agendas: a collaborative model for knowledge translation between research and practice in clinical settings. Res Nurs Health. 2008;31(2):130–40.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
37.
Solviweb, Une nouvelle vie - un programme prénatal en ligne pour la future maman, son/sa partenaire et sa famille. 2015.
38.
39.
40.
Jakubiec D, et al. Effect of attending childbirth education classes on psychological distress in pregnant women measured by means of the general health questionnaire. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2014;23(6):953–7.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Godin K, et al. Assessing public health prenatal education knowledge: findings from the LDPC healthy pregnancies project. Ontario: Woodstock; 2014.
42.
Salama-Younes M, et al. Factor structure and internal consistency of the 12-item general health questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the subjective vitality scale (VS), and the relationship between them: a study from France. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Dennis CL. The breastfeeding self-efficacy scale: psychometric assessment of the short form. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2003;32(6):734–44.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Degrange M, et al. Is self-confidence a factor for successful breastfeeding? Arch Pediatr. 2015;22(7):708–17.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Gauthier J, Bouchard S. Adaptation canadienne-française de la forme révisée du State-Trait Anxiety Inventory de Spielberger. Can J Behav Sci. 1993;25(4):559–78.CrossRef
46.
Reece SM. The parent expectations survey: a measure of perceived self-efficacy. Clin Nurs Res. 1992;1(4):336–46.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Savard J. Efficacité parentale perçue par des mères primipares exposées ou non aux soins d'infirmières ayant reçu la formation spécifique au programme d'aide périnatale aux parents (PAPP), in Faculty of nursing. Quebec City: Université Laval; 1997. p. 142.
48.
Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10-item Edinburgh postnatal depression scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;150:782–6.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Guedeney N, Fermanian J. Validation study of the French version of the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS): new results about use and psychometric properties. Eur Psychiatry. 1998;13(2):83–9.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Redshaw M, et al. The Oxford worries about labour scale: women's experience and measurement characteristics of a measure of maternal concern about labour and birth. Psychol Health Med. 2009;14(3):354–66.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Hodnett ED, Simmons-Tropea DA. The labour Agentry scale: psychometric properties of an instrument measuring control during childbirth. Res Nurs Health. 1987;10(5):301–10.CrossRefPubMed
52.
McCrea BH, Wright ME. Satisfaction in childbirth and perceptions of personal control in pain relief during labour. J Adv Nurs. 1999;29(4):877–84.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Beaton DE, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186–91.CrossRef
54.
Massoubre C, et al. The translation of questionnaires and of tests: techniques and problems. Can J Psychiatr. 2002;47(1):61–7.
55.
Marx RG, et al. A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(8):730–5.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Humenick SS. Program evaluation. In: Childbirth education: practice, research and theory. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 2000. p. 593–608.
57.
Sandelowski M. Focus on research methods combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques. Res Nurs Health. 2000;23:246–55.CrossRefPubMed
58.
O'Reilly M, Parker N. Unsatisfactory saturation: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2012;13(2):190–7.CrossRef
59.
Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Lasker RD, Weiss ES, Miller R. Partnership synergy: a practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Provan KG, et al. The use of network analysis to strengthen community partnerships. Public Adm Rev. 2005;65(5):603–13.CrossRef
62.
O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(2):92–8.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Gouvernement du Québec. Les services intégrés en périnatalité et pour la petite enfance à l’intention des familles vivant en contexte de vulnérabilité – cadre de référence. Québec: Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux; 2004.
65.
Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. Naître égaux - Grandir en santé. Un programme intégré de promotion de la santé et de prévention en périnatalité. Québec: Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux; 2002.
66.
Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. Programme national de santé publique 2015–2025. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec; 2015.
67.
68.
Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. Ucinet for windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies; 2002.
69.
Scott J. Social network analysis. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2013.
70.
Poh HL, Koh SS, He HG. An integrative review of fathers’ experiences during pregnancy and childbirth. Int Nurs Rev. 2014;61(4):543–54.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Impacts of online and group perinatal education: a mixed methods study protocol for the optimization of perinatal health services
Authors
Geneviève Roch
Roxane Borgès Da Silva
Francine de Montigny
Holly O. Witteman
Tamarha Pierce
Sonia Semenic
Julie Poissant
André-Anne Parent
Deena White
Nils Chaillet
Carl-Ardy Dubois
Mathieu Ouimet
Geneviève Lapointe
Stéphane Turcotte
Alexandre Prud’homme
Geneviève Painchaud Guérard
Marie-Pierre Gagnon
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3204-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Health Services Research 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Patient and provider perspectives inform an intervention to improve linkage to care for HIV patients in Ukraine

Research article

Heard and valued: the development of a model to meaningfully engage marginalized populations in health services planning

Research article

Community-based directly observed treatment for TB patients to improve HIV services: a cross-sectional study in a South African province

Research article

Sociodemographic differences in linkage error: an examination of four large-scale datasets

Research article

Long-term effects of cancer on earnings of childhood, adolescent and young adult cancer survivors – a population-based study from British Columbia, Canada

Research article

Pediatric admissions that include intensive care: a population-based study