Top

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Puerperium | Study protocol

Development of two instruments for assessing maternity health needs: protocol of a clinimetric study

Authors: Carmen Paz-Pascual, Isabel Artieta-Pinedo, Maite Espinosa, Paola Bully, ema-Q Group

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

There is an unquestionable need to adapt health care to the needs of each woman, to foster her self-confidence and provide her with the autonomy to manage her own maternity. This involves empowering her to choose and face her model of childbirth and childcare responsibly. The range of self-management health needs tests offered by the scientific community at this stage of life is practically non-existent. In this project, we intend to develop and evaluate the validity, reliability and ease of use of two self-administered analysis instruments for: 1.- Needs of women preparing for childbirth and 2.- Identification of alarm symptoms in the puerperium.

Methods

This is a descriptive study of the clinimetric characteristics and usability of two developed self-applied digital instruments for measuring needs in childbirth and postpartum based on the recommendations made in the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) and by the International Test Commission (ITC). The study consists of two phases: 1 - Evaluation of the clinimetric properties of the two instruments, which were developed and then altered, based on their comprehensibility and global usability estimated from a pilot study and 2 - Pre-implementation study.

Discussion

The final product will be two valid, reliable, usable instruments for self-assessment of health needs that are highly acceptable to young couples and the professionals who serve them. They will be a valuable resource for meeting the needs of the population more efficiently and guiding decision-making, and they will contribute to the greater sustainability of the health system.

Available only for authorised users

Schrader McMillan A, Barlow J, Redshaw M. Birth and beyond: a review of evidence about antenatal education. London: Department of Health; 2009.

Billingham K. Preparing for parenthood: the role of antenatal education. Community Pract. 2011;84(5):36–8.PubMed

Oiberman A. La palabra en las maternidades: una aproximación a la psicología perinatal. Psicodebate Psicología, Cultura y Sociedad. 2007. https://doi.org/10.18682/pd.v1i0.525.

Fuentes-Pelaez N, Molina MC, Amoros P, Jane-Checa M, Martinez-Bueno C. The design of a maternal education program based on analysis of needs and collaborative work. Rev Cercet Interv So. 2013;42:50–67.

Paz-Pascual C, Artieta-Pinedo I, Grandes G, Espinosa-Cifuentes M, Gaminde-Inda I, Payo-Gordon J. Necesidades percibidas por las mujeres respecto a su maternidad. Estudio cualitativo para el rediseño de la educación maternal. Aten Primaria. 2016;48(10):657–64.CrossRef

Bert F, Gualano MR, Brusaferro S, De Vito E, et al. Pregnancy e-health: a multicenter Italian cross-sectional study on internet use and decisionmaking among pregnant women. J E C H. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2013-202584 Epub 2013 Sep 26.

Hughson JAP, Daly JO, Woodward-Kron R, Hajek J, Story D. The Rise of Pregnancy Apps and the Implications for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Women: Narrative Review. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2018. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.9119.

O'Higgins A, Murphy OC, Egan A, Mullaney L, Sheehan S, Turner MJ. The use of digital media by women using the maternity services in a developed country. Ir Med J. 2014;107(10):313–5.PubMed

Roch G, Borgès Da Silva R, de Montigny F, et al. Impacts of online and group perinatal education: a mixed methods study protocol for the optimization of perinatal health services. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3204-9.

10.

Rodger D, Skuse A, Wilmore M, et al. Pregnant women's use of information and communications technologies to access pregnancy-related health information in South Australia. Aust J Prim Health. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY13029.

11.

Molina-Férnandez MI, Raigal-Aran L, Flor-Lopez M, Prata P, Font-Jimenez I, et al. The effectiveness of a digital shared decision-making tool in hormonal contraception during clinical assessment: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial in Spain. BMC Public Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7572-9.

12.

Mukhopadhyay A, Sreenadh M, Anoop A. eHealth applications: a comprehensive approach, 2020 international conference on Emerging Trends in Information Technology and Engineering (ic-ETITE). Vellore; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/ic-ETITE47903.2020.165.

13.

WHO eHealth - World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/ehealth/en/. Accessed 18 Nov 2019.

14.

Artieta-Pinedo I, Paz-Pascual C, Grandes G, Villanueva G, Ema Q Group. An evaluation of Spanish and English on-line information sources regarding pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period. Midwifery. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2017.12.002.

15.

International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). http://ipdas.ohri.ca/resources.html. Accessed 04 Sept 2019.

16.

Brunton RJ, Dryer R, Saliba A, Kohlhoff J. Pregnancy anxiety: a systematic review of current scales. J Affect Disord. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.039.

17.

Chasan-Taber L, Schmidt MD, Roberts DE, Hosmer D, Markenson G, Freedson PS. Development and validation of a Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire [published correction appears in Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Jan;43(1):195]. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000142303.49306.0d.

18.

Carmona Monge FJ, Peñacoba-Puente C, Marín Morales D, Carretero Abellán I. Factor structure, validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the Cambridge worry scale. Midwifery. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2010.11.006.

19.

Vioque J, Navarrete-Muñoz EM, Gimenez-Monzó D, et al. Reproducibility and validity of a food frequency questionnaire among pregnant women in a Mediterranean area. Nutr J. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-12-26.

20.

Paz-Pascual C, Artieta-Pinedo I, Grandes G, Ema Q Group. Consensus on priorities in maternal education: results of Delphi and nominal group technique approaches. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2382-8.

21.

Mokkink LB, Prinsen C, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, et al. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). User Man. 2018;78:1.

22.

International Test Commission. The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second edition). 2017. Disponible en https://www.intestcom.org/.

23.

EUSTAT. Euskal Estatistika Erakundea / Instituto Vasco de Estadística website. https://www.eustat.eus/elementos/ele0016700/La_poblacion_de_la_C_A_de_Euskadi_alcanza_su_maximo_historico_a_1_de_enero_de_2019_con_2188/not0016799_c.html . Published October 2019. Accessed March 2020.

24.

Borracci Raúl A, Giorgi Mariano A, Guido G, Víctor D, Diego M, Tajer Carlos D, et al. Perfil de difusión y adopción de innovaciones de los cardiólogos en Argentina. Rev Méd Chile. 2013. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872013000100007.

25.

Gagnon MP, Attieh R, Dunn S, et al. Development and Content Validation of a Transcultural Instrument to Assess Organizational Readiness for Knowledge Translation in Healthcare Organizations: The OR4KT. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(9):791–7. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2018.17 Published 2018 Sep 1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care [published correction appears in Lancet. 2014 Sep 20;384(9948):1098]. Lancet. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60789-3.

27.

Observatorio Nacional de las Telecomunicaciones y de la SI. ONTSI. Los ciudadanos ante la e-Sanidad. Opiniones y expectativas de los ciudadanos sobre el uso y la aplicación de las TIC en el ámbito sanitario. 2016. Disponible en: https://www.ontsi.red.es/ontsi/sites/ontsi/files/los_ciudadanos_ante_la_e-sanidad.pdf.

28.

Alfaro M, Bonis J, Bravo R, Fluiters E, Minué S. Nuevas tecnologías en atención primaria: personas, máquinas, historias y redes. Informe SESPAS 2012. Gac Sanit. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.12.005.

29.

Gagnon M-P, Ndiaye MA, Larouche A, et al. Optimising patient active role with a user-centred eHealth platform (CONCERTO+) in chronic diseases management:a study protocol for a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e028554. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028554.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Bert F, Passi S, Scaioli G, Gualano MR, Siliquini R. There comes a baby! What should I do? Smartphones' pregnancy-related applications: a web-based overview. Health Inform J. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458215574120.

31.

Nuño-Solinís R, Urtaran-Laresgoiti M, Urizar E. Experiencia y Participación del Paciente. Foro de Transformación Sanitaria, Deusto Business School Health. 2017. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28568.44801.

32.

Ridgeway JL, LeBlanc A, Branda M, et al. Implementation of a new prenatal care model to reduce office visits and increase connectivity and continuity of care: protocol for a mixed-methods study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0762-2.

33.

Wexler A, Davoudi A, Weissenbacher D, Choi R, O’Connor K, Cummings H, et al. Pregnancy and health in the age of the internet: a content analysis of online “birth club” forums. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0230947. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230947.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655.

35.

Craig P, Dieppe P Macintyre S, Michie A, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. https://mrc.ukri.org/documents/pdf/complex-interventions-guidance; 2019.

36.

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.

37.

Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. 2013. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301299.

Title: Development of two instruments for assessing maternity health needs: protocol of a clinimetric study
Authors: Carmen Paz-Pascual
Isabel Artieta-Pinedo
Maite Espinosa
Paola Bully
ema-Q Group
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Puerperium
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03377-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Development of two instruments for assessing maternity health needs: protocol of a clinimetric study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Establishment of an antepartum predictive scoring model to identify candidates for vaginal birth after cesarean

The impact of cesarean section on neonatal outcomes at a university-based tertiary hospital in Jordan

SARS-COV-2 infection during pregnancy, a risk factor for eclampsia or neurological manifestations of COVID-19? Case report

Maternal postpartum feeding anxiety was associated with infant feeding practices: results from the mother-infant cohort study of China

Prevalence of anemia and sociodemographic characteristics among pregnant and non-pregnant women in southwest China: a longitudinal observational study

Prelabor rupture of membranes and the association with cerebral palsy in term born children: a national registry-based cohort study