Tools
Tools
Dickinson, Fiona 
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5298-9127, McCauley, Mary ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1446-0625, Smith, Helen ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6252-3793 and van den Broek, Nynke ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8523-2684
(2019)
'Patient reported outcome measures for use in pregnancy and childbirth: a systematic review.'. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, Vol 19, p. 155.
|
Text
Fiona PROM.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (995kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background: Globally, an increasing number of women give birth in a healthcare facility. Improvement in the quality of care is crucial if preventable maternal mortality and morbidity are to be reduced. A Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) can be used to measure quality of care and provide new information on the impact that treatment or interventions have on patient’s self-assessed health and health-related quality of life. We conducted a systematic review
to identify which condition-specific PROMs are currently available for use in pregnancy and childbirth, and to evaluate whether these could potentially be used to assess the quality of care provided for women using maternity services.
Methods: We searched for articles relating to the use of PROMs related to care during pregnancy, childbirth, the postnatal period and women’s health more generally using PsycINFO, CINAHL, Medline and Web of Science databases as well as “grey literature”, with no date limit. Any PROM identified was reviewed with regards to development, use, and potential applicability to assess quality of maternity care provision. A narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings.
Results: Six papers were identified; two related to aspects of pregnancy (hyperemesis gravidarum and gestational diabetes), and four related to childbirth and the postnatal period (obstetric haemorrhage and postnatal depression). Within these papers, a total of 14 different tools were identified, which assessed a variety of aspects of physical, psychological and social health, or were generic tools, not specific to childbirth. One PROM addressed childbirth
generally, however, it did not ask for or provide specific outcome measures but required women to identify and then assess what they considered the most important areas in their life affected by childbirth.
Conclusions: To date, there is no PROM agreed which would be suitable as patient reported outcome measure for the assessment of the quality of care women receive during pregnancy or after childbirth. However, there are a variety of available assessment tools which could potentially be helpful in developing new and existing PROMs for maternity care.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Subjects: | WQ Obstetrics > WQ 100 General works WQ Obstetrics > Childbirth. Prenatal Care > WQ 175 Prenatal care WQ Obstetrics > WQ 20 Research (General) WQ Obstetrics > Pregnancy > WQ 200 General works WQ Obstetrics > Pregnancy Complications > WQ 240 Pregnancy complications (General) |
| Faculty: Department: | Clinical Sciences & International Health > International Public Health Department |
| Digital Object Identifer (DOI): | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2318-3 |
| Related URLs: | |
| Depositing User: | Stacy Murtagh |
| Date Deposited: | 19 Jun 2019 09:56 |
| Last Modified: | 19 Jun 2019 09:56 |
| URI: | https://archive.lstmed.ac.uk/id/eprint/11067 |
Statistics
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit Item |