干预措施以重新引入或增加辅助阴道分娩:文献系统评价。

Interventions to reintroduce or increase assisted vaginal births: a systematic review of the literature.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Evidence Based Healthcare Post-Graduate Program, Sao Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, Brazil

UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP) Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2023 Feb 14;13(2):e070640. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070640.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise the evidence from studies that implemented interventions to increase/reintroduce the use of assisted vaginal births (AVB).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included experimental, semi-experimental and observational studies that reported any intervention to reintroduce/increase AVB use.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, Scopus, Cochrane, WHO Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO.int/ictrp through September 2021.

RISK OF BIAS

For trials, we used the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care tool; for other designs we used Risk of Bias for Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Due to heterogeneity in interventions, we did not conduct meta-analyses. We present data descriptively, grouping studies according to settings: high-income countries (HICs) or low/middle-income countries (LMICs). We classified direction of intervention effects as (a) statistically significant increase or decrease, (b) no statistically significant change or (c) statistical significance not reported in primary study. We provide qualitative syntheses of the main barriers and enablers for success of the intervention.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies (10 from LMICs), mostly of low or moderate methodological quality, which described interventions with various components (eg, didactic sessions, simulation, hands-on training, guidelines, audit/feedback). All HICs studies described isolated initiatives to increase AVB use; 9/10 LMIC studies tested initiatives to increase AVB use as part of larger multicomponent interventions to improve maternal/perinatal healthcare. No study assessed women's views or designed interventions using behavioural theories. Overall, interventions were less successful in LMICs than in HICs. Increase in AVB use was not associated with significant increase in adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes. The main barriers to the successful implementation of the initiatives were related to staff and hospital environment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to indicate which intervention, or combination of interventions, is more effective to safely increase AVB use. More research is needed, especially in LMICs, including studies that design interventions taking into account theories of behaviour change.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020215224.

摘要

目的

综合实施干预措施以增加/重新引入辅助阴道分娩(AVB)使用的研究证据。

设计

系统评价。

纳入标准

我们纳入了报告任何干预措施以重新引入/增加 AVB 使用的实验、半实验和观察性研究。

数据来源

我们检索了 PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL、LILACS、Scopus、Cochrane、WHO 图书馆、Web of Science、ClinicalTrials.gov 和 WHO.int/ictrp,检索时间截至 2021 年 9 月。

偏倚风险

对于试验,我们使用 Cochrane 有效实践和组织护理工具;对于其他设计,我们使用非随机干预研究的偏倚风险。

数据提取和综合

由于干预措施存在异质性,我们没有进行荟萃分析。我们根据研究设置进行描述性分组:高收入国家(HICs)或低收入/中等收入国家(LMICs)。我们将干预效果的方向分类为(a)统计学上显著增加或减少,(b)无统计学意义的变化或(c)主要研究中未报告统计学意义。我们提供了对干预成功的主要障碍和促成因素的定性综合。

结果

我们纳入了 16 项研究(其中 10 项来自 LMICs),这些研究大多为低或中等方法学质量,描述了具有各种组成部分的干预措施(例如,讲座、模拟、实践培训、指南、审核/反馈)。所有 HICs 研究都描述了孤立的举措来增加 AVB 的使用;10 项 LMIC 研究中的 9 项测试了增加 AVB 使用的举措,这些举措是改善孕产妇/围产期保健的更大多组分干预措施的一部分。没有研究评估妇女的观点或使用行为理论设计干预措施。总体而言,干预措施在 LMICs 中的效果不如在 HICs 中好。AVB 使用的增加与不良母婴或围产结局的显著增加无关。成功实施这些举措的主要障碍与员工和医院环境有关。

结论

没有足够的证据表明哪种干预措施或干预措施的组合更有效,以安全地增加 AVB 的使用。特别是在 LMICs 中,需要更多的研究,包括考虑行为改变理论设计干预措施的研究。

PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42020215224。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/be2b/9930566/d3c0af1b5f29/bmjopen-2022-070640f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索