Dataset Information

Examining the use of the FIGO Nutrition Checklist in routine antenatal practice: multistakeholder feedback to implementation.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To gain insights from pregnant women and obstetricians on the utility of the FIGO Nutrition Checklist in antenatal practice. METHODS:Women were recruited from the antenatal department of a large tertiary-level university maternity hospital in Dublin, Ireland, between October and December 2019. Participants completed the FIGO Nutrition Checklist before their routine antenatal appointment. Obstetricians and women were encouraged to discuss the FIGO Nutrition Checklist during the clinical visit. Completed FIGO Nutrition Checklists were collected after appointments. Acceptability was assessed through questionnaires. RESULTS:The majority (80.0%) of women answered "No" to at least one diet quality question, indicating a potential nutritional risk. While none of the participating obstetricians routinely discussed nutrition with women, all agreed that using the Checklist encouraged them to address nutrition with pregnant women. Nearly every woman (99.0%) found the Checklist quick to complete; however, all participating obstetricians felt there was not enough time to discuss it in routine practice. Despite this, most obstetricians and pregnant women recommended the FIGO Nutrition Checklist for use. CONCLUSION:The FIGO Nutrition Checklist is acceptable for use in routine antenatal practice in tertiary care settings. It helped identify potentially at-risk women during early pregnancy and facilitated conversations related to optimum diet.

SUBMITTER: Killeen SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7589336 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Examining the use of the FIGO Nutrition Checklist in routine antenatal practice: multistakeholder feedback to implementation.

Killeen Sarah Louise SL Callaghan Shauna L SL Jacob Chandni Maria CM Hanson Mark A MA McAuliffe Fionnuala M FM

International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 20200901

<h4>Objective</h4>To gain insights from pregnant women and obstetricians on the utility of the FIGO Nutrition Checklist in antenatal practice.<h4>Methods</h4>Women were recruited from the antenatal department of a large tertiary-level university maternity hospital in Dublin, Ireland, between October and December 2019. Participants completed the FIGO Nutrition Checklist before their routine antenatal appointment. Obstetricians and women were encouraged to discuss the FIGO Nutrition Checklist duri ...[more]

PMID: 32894589

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWhile previous studies have begun to explore newly graduated junior doctors' preparedness for practice, findings are largely based on simplistic survey data or perceptions of newly graduated junior doctors and their clinical supervisors alone. This study explores, in a deeper manner, multiple stakeholders' conceptualisations of what it means to be prepared for practice and their perceptions about newly graduated junior doctors' preparedness (or unpreparedness) using innovative qualitative methods.DesignA multistakeholder, multicentre qualitative study including narrative interviews and longitudinal audio diaries.SettingFour UK settings: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.ParticipantsEight stakeholder groups comprising n=185 participants engaged in 101 narrative interviews (27 group and 84 individual). Twenty-six junior doctors in their first year postgraduation also provided audio diaries over a 3-month period.ResultsWe identified 2186 narratives across all participants (506 classified as 'prepared', 663 as 'unprepared', 951 as 'general'). Seven themes were identified; this paper focuses on two themes pertinent to our research questions: (1) explicit conceptualisations of preparedness for practice; and (2) newly graduated junior doctors' preparedness for the General Medical Council's (GMC) outcomes for graduates. Stakeholders' conceptualisations of preparedness for practice included short-term (hitting the ground running) and long-term preparedness, alongside being prepared for practical and emotional aspects. Stakeholders' perceptions of medical graduates' preparedness for practice varied across different GMC outcomes for graduates (eg, Doctor as Scholar and Scientist, as Practitioner, as Professional) and across stakeholders (eg, newly graduated doctors sometimes perceived themselves as prepared but others did not).ConclusionOur narrative findings highlight the complexities and nuances surrounding new medical graduates' preparedness for practice. We encourage stakeholders to develop a shared understanding (and realistic expectations) of new medical graduates' preparedness. We invite medical school leaders to increase the proportion of time that medical students spend participating meaningfully in multiprofessional teams during workplace learning.

Project description:Background:Training of spine surgeons may impact the availability of contemporary minimally invasive spinal surgery (MIS) to patients and drive spine surgeons' clinical decision-making when applying minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques (MISST) to the treatment of common degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Training requirements and implementation of privileges vary in different parts of the world. The purpose of this study was to analyze the training in relation to practice patterns of surgeons who perform lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery the world over. Methods:The authors solicited responses to an online survey sent to spine surgeons by email, and chat groups in social media networks including Facebook, WeChat, WhatsApp, and Linkedin. Surgeons were asked the following questions: (I) please indicate your training? (II) What type of MISST spinal surgery do you perform? (III) How would you rate your experience in MIS lumbar spinal surgery and what percentage of your practice is MISST? And (IV) which avenue did you use to train for the MISST you currently employ in your clinical practice today? Descriptive statistics were applied to count responses and cross-tabulated them to the surgeon's training. Pearson Chi-square measures, kappa statistics, and linear regression analysis of agreement or disagreement were performed by analyzing the distribution of variances using statistical package SPSS version 25.0. Results:A total of 430 surgeons accessed the survey. The completion rate was 67.4%. Analyzing the responses of 292 surveys submitted by 97 neurosurgeons (33.2%), 161 orthopaedic surgeons (55.1%), and 34 surgeons of other postgraduate training (11.6%) showed that only 14% (41/292) of surgeons had completed a fellowship. Surgeons rated their skill level 33.5% of the time as master and experienced surgeon, and 35.6% of the time as novice or surgeon with some experience. There were more master (64.6% versus 29.2%) and experienced (52% versus 40%) surgeons amongst orthopaedic surgeons than amongst neurosurgeons at a statistically significant level (P=0.11). There were near twice as many orthopaedic surgeons (54.3%) using endoscopic procedures in the lumbar spine as their favorite MISST than neurosurgeons (35.4%; P=0.096). Endoscopic spine surgeons' main sources of knowledge acquisition were (I) learning in small meetings (57.3%), (II) attending workshops (63.1%), and (III) national and international conferences (59.8%). Conclusions:The majority of spine surgeons reported more than half of their cases employing MISST at a high skill level. Very few MISST surgeons are fellowship trained but attend workshops and various meetings suggesting that many of them are self-thought. Orthopaedic surgeons were more likely to implement endoscopic spinal surgery into the routine clinical practice. As endoscopic spine surgery gains more traction and patient demand, minimal adequate training will be part of the ongoing debate.

Project description:Malnutrition in all its forms has risen on global and national agendas in recent years because of the recognition of its magnitude and its consequences for a wide range of human, social, and economic outcomes. Although the WHO, national governments, and other organizations have endorsed targets and identified appropriate policies, programs, and interventions, a major challenge lies in implementing these with the scale and quality needed to achieve population impact. This paper presents an approach to implementation science in nutrition (ISN) that builds upon concepts developed in other policy domains and addresses critical gaps in linking knowledge to effective action. ISN is defined here as an interdisciplinary body of theory, knowledge, frameworks, tools, and approaches whose purpose is to strengthen implementation quality and impact. It includes a wide range of methods and approaches to identify and address implementation bottlenecks; means to identify, evaluate, and scale up implementation innovations; and strategies to enhance the utilization of existing knowledge, tools, and frameworks based on the evolving science of implementation. The ISN framework recognizes that quality implementation requires alignment across 5 domains: the intervention, policy, or innovation being implemented; the implementing organization(s); the enabling environment of policies and stakeholders; the individuals, households, and communities of interest; and the strategies and decision processes used at various stages of the implementation process. The success of aligning these domains through implementation research requires a culture of inquiry, evaluation, learning, and response among program implementers; an action-oriented mission among the research partners; continuity of funding for implementation research; and resolving inherent tensions between program implementation and research. The Society for Implementation Science in Nutrition is a recently established membership society to advance the science and practice of nutrition implementation at various scales and in varied contexts.

Project description:BackgroundIn Ethiopia, the proportion of mothers who attend the fourth antenatal care visit is lower than the proportion who attend the first visit. Although the reasons for these dropouts were investigated, few studies introduced interventions to promote the fourth antenatal care visit. Hence, the aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of checklist-based box system intervention on improving fourth antenatal care visit.MethodThis study employed a double-blind, parallel-group, two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of checklist-based box system intervention with the usual standard of care as a control arm. Study clusters are assigned to intervention and control arm in 1:1 allocation ratio using simple randomization technique. Pregnant mothers below 16 weeks of gestation were enrolled. Open data kit was used to collect data from the baseline and end-line surveys, and STATA version 15.0 was used to analyse the data. A difference-in-difference estimator was used to compare fourth antenatal care visit between the intervention and control groups across time. Mixed effect multi-level logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between the dependent and independent variables.ResultData were collected from 2224 mothers who belong to 15 intervention and 15 control clusters. The difference in difference estimation resulted in a significant difference (26.1, 95%CI: 18-34%, p < 0.0001) between the intervention and control groups. Similarly, as compared to controls, the fourth antenatal care visit was found significantly higher in the intervention clusters (432 (85.2%) Vs. 297 (53.7%), p < 0.0001)/(AOR:5.69, 95% CI:4.14-7.82). Mothers who were knowledgeable about the services given during antenatal care visits (AOR: 2.31, 95% CI:1.65-3.24) and mothers who had a high level of social support (AOR:1.47, 95% CI: 1.06-2.04) were more likely to attend the fourth antenatal care visit.ConclusionImplementation of checklist-based box system intervention resulted in a statistically significant effect in attendance of fourth antenatal care visit. Community-level variables were found to be more important in explaining variability in the fourth antenatal care visit. It is recommended that the intervention be implemented on a larger scale.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , Retrospectively registered on 26/03/2019, with trial registration number-NCT03891030.

Dataset Information

Examining the use of the FIGO Nutrition Checklist in routine antenatal practice: multistakeholder feedback to implementation.

Publications

Examining the use of the FIGO Nutrition Checklist in routine antenatal practice: multistakeholder feedback to implementation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets