Antenatal care practices for gestational weight gain: a cross sectional survey of antenatal care providers reported provision and barriers to providing recommended care.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Jenna L Hollis, Kristine Deroover, Justine Daly, Belinda Tully, Michelle Foster, Christophe Lecathelinais, Craig E Pennell, John Wiggers, Melanie Kingsland
{"title":"Antenatal care practices for gestational weight gain: a cross sectional survey of antenatal care providers reported provision and barriers to providing recommended care.","authors":"Jenna L Hollis, Kristine Deroover, Justine Daly, Belinda Tully, Michelle Foster, Christophe Lecathelinais, Craig E Pennell, John Wiggers, Melanie Kingsland","doi":"10.1186/s12884-024-06860-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implementation of recommended gestational weight gain (GWG) care by antenatal care providers is poor. It is unclear whether practice implementation and barriers differ between antenatal care provider profession or experience. This study aimed to assesses the provision of and barriers to guideline care for GWG and examine associations with professional discipline and years of experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross sectional survey was conducted with antenatal care providers working in three public maternity services in a regional city in Australia. Data were collected on the provision of and barriers (informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework) to recommended GWG care. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Associations between health profession characteristics (professional discipline and years providing antenatal care) and GWG care practices and barrier outcomes were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>117 antenatal care providers completed the survey (75% participation rate). One quarter (25%) reported that they routinely provided recommended GWG assessment at the first antenatal visit, and 9% at subsequent visits. Only 7% routinely provided recommended advice on GWG, healthy eating and physical activity. Professional discipline or years of experience were not associated with higher odds of GWG practices. Skills, belief about capabilities, belief about consequences and environmental context and resources were barriers to providing care. Medical professionals had higher odds of agreeing that they have been adequately trained to address GWG (OR = 9.14, 95%CI:3.10-26.90) and feel competent in having sensitive conversations with pregnant women about GWG (OR = 8.60, 95%CI:2.29-32.28) than midwives. Midwives had higher odds of agreeing that there are services they can refer pregnant women to for further support (OR = 2.80, 95%CI:1.13-6.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The provision of antenatal care for GWG was low, inconsistently provided and did not differ by professional discipline or years of experience. Antenatal care providers report numerous barriers including skills, belief about capabilities, belief about consequences, and environmental context and resources. Barriers to GWG care provision differed by professional discipline, but not years of providing care. The findings demonstrate that the type and prioritisation of practice-change implementation strategies may need to be tailored to address the differential barriers faced by professional groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":9033,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","volume":"24 1","pages":"685"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491035/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06860-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implementation of recommended gestational weight gain (GWG) care by antenatal care providers is poor. It is unclear whether practice implementation and barriers differ between antenatal care provider profession or experience. This study aimed to assesses the provision of and barriers to guideline care for GWG and examine associations with professional discipline and years of experience.

Methods: A cross sectional survey was conducted with antenatal care providers working in three public maternity services in a regional city in Australia. Data were collected on the provision of and barriers (informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework) to recommended GWG care. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Associations between health profession characteristics (professional discipline and years providing antenatal care) and GWG care practices and barrier outcomes were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.

Results: 117 antenatal care providers completed the survey (75% participation rate). One quarter (25%) reported that they routinely provided recommended GWG assessment at the first antenatal visit, and 9% at subsequent visits. Only 7% routinely provided recommended advice on GWG, healthy eating and physical activity. Professional discipline or years of experience were not associated with higher odds of GWG practices. Skills, belief about capabilities, belief about consequences and environmental context and resources were barriers to providing care. Medical professionals had higher odds of agreeing that they have been adequately trained to address GWG (OR = 9.14, 95%CI:3.10-26.90) and feel competent in having sensitive conversations with pregnant women about GWG (OR = 8.60, 95%CI:2.29-32.28) than midwives. Midwives had higher odds of agreeing that there are services they can refer pregnant women to for further support (OR = 2.80, 95%CI:1.13-6.91).

Conclusions: The provision of antenatal care for GWG was low, inconsistently provided and did not differ by professional discipline or years of experience. Antenatal care providers report numerous barriers including skills, belief about capabilities, belief about consequences, and environmental context and resources. Barriers to GWG care provision differed by professional discipline, but not years of providing care. The findings demonstrate that the type and prioritisation of practice-change implementation strategies may need to be tailored to address the differential barriers faced by professional groups.

针对妊娠体重增加的产前护理实践:一项针对产前护理提供者的横断面调查,报告了提供建议护理的情况和障碍。
背景:产前护理人员对妊娠体重增加(GWG)建议护理的执行情况很差。目前尚不清楚产前护理人员的职业或经验不同,在实践执行和障碍方面是否存在差异。本研究旨在评估妊娠体重增加指南护理的提供情况和障碍,并研究与专业学科和工作年限的关系:方法:我们对澳大利亚某地区城市三家公立产科服务机构的产前护理人员进行了横断面调查。调查收集了有关建议的 GWG 护理的提供情况和障碍(根据理论领域框架)的数据。数据采用描述性统计方法进行总结。采用多变量逻辑回归法评估了医疗行业特征(专业学科和提供产前护理的年限)与GWG护理实践和障碍结果之间的关联:117 名产前保健提供者完成了调查(参与率为 75%)。四分之一(25%)的医疗服务提供者表示,他们在首次产前检查时常规提供建议的 GWG 评估,9% 的医疗服务提供者在随后的产前检查中常规提供建议的 GWG 评估。只有 7% 的人例行提供有关 GWG、健康饮食和体育锻炼的建议。专业学科或工作年限与较高的 GWG 实践几率无关。技能、对能力的信念、对后果的信念以及环境背景和资源是提供护理的障碍。与助产士相比,医学专业人员认为自己接受过充分的培训以应对 GWG 的几率更高(OR = 9.14,95%CI:3.10-26.90),并认为自己有能力与孕妇就 GWG 进行敏感对话(OR = 8.60,95%CI:2.29-32.28)。助产士同意他们可以将孕妇转介到其他服务机构以获得进一步支持的几率更高(OR = 2.80,95%CI:1.13-6.91):产前保健机构提供的 GWG 产前保健服务较少,提供的服务也不一致,且不因专业学科或工作年限的不同而有所区别。产前保健提供者报告了许多障碍,包括技能、对能力的信念、对后果的信念以及环境背景和资源。提供 GWG 护理的障碍因专业学科而异,但提供护理的年限则不尽相同。研究结果表明,可能需要对实践变革实施战略的类型和优先次序进行调整,以解决专业群体所面临的不同障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
845
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. The journal welcomes submissions on the biomedical aspects of pregnancy, breastfeeding, labor, maternal health, maternity care, trends and sociological aspects of pregnancy and childbirth.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信