↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision-making and evidence use during the process of prenatal record review in Canada: a multiphase qualitative study
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12884-015-0503-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Psychology 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 15 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2015.
All research outputs
#6,493,719
of 11,344,222 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,342
of 1,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,063
of 207,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#41
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,344,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 207,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.