Kyara J. Liu MPH , Evelina Pituch OT, PhD , Kathryn Barrett MLIS , Anne Berndl MD, MSc , Lisa Graves MD , Yona Lunsky PhD, CPsych , Marina Vainder MD , Andi Camden PhD , Meredith Evans PhD , Lesley A. Tarasoff PhD , Hilary K. Brown PhD
{"title":"Development of Quality Indicators for Pregnancy Care of People With Disabilities Using a RAND-Modified Delphi Method","authors":"Kyara J. Liu MPH , Evelina Pituch OT, PhD , Kathryn Barrett MLIS , Anne Berndl MD, MSc , Lisa Graves MD , Yona Lunsky PhD, CPsych , Marina Vainder MD , Andi Camden PhD , Meredith Evans PhD , Lesley A. Tarasoff PhD , Hilary K. Brown PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jogc.2025.103106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study aimed to develop quality indicators (QIs) for pregnancy care of people with disabilities.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used a RAND-modified Delphi method. We first conducted a scoping review of Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL (2004–2024) to identify candidate QIs related to the structures, clinical processes, and interpersonal processes of pregnancy care for people with disabilities. Draft QIs were then validated in a 3-round Delphi study from June 2023 to October 2024, with an expert panel of 17 pregnancy care providers and 10 birthing people with disabilities. In round 1, panellists rated draft QIs on importance and feasibility in a survey. New QIs and QIs requiring rephrasing were identified. In round 2, QIs were discussed and refined in focus groups. In round 3, panellists rated new and revised QIs on importance and feasibility. The final list of QIs was created on the basis of panel consensus on importance.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The review identified 98 studies, from which 44 candidate QIs were created for structures (n = 12), clinical processes (n = 22), and interpersonal processes of care (n = 10). In round 1 of the Delphi survey, consensus on importance was achieved for all QIs, 5 of which were identified as requiring rephrasing. Panellists suggested 10 new QIs. In round 2, the new and revised QIs were discussed in focus groups. In round 3, the new and revised QIs achieved consensus on importance, resulting in a final list of 54 QIs (n = 43 achieving consensus on feasibility).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>These QIs can assist health care providers, administrators, and policymakers in optimising the quality of pregnancy care for people with disabilities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada","volume":"47 11","pages":"Article 103106"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1701216325003524","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
This study aimed to develop quality indicators (QIs) for pregnancy care of people with disabilities.
Methods
We used a RAND-modified Delphi method. We first conducted a scoping review of Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL (2004–2024) to identify candidate QIs related to the structures, clinical processes, and interpersonal processes of pregnancy care for people with disabilities. Draft QIs were then validated in a 3-round Delphi study from June 2023 to October 2024, with an expert panel of 17 pregnancy care providers and 10 birthing people with disabilities. In round 1, panellists rated draft QIs on importance and feasibility in a survey. New QIs and QIs requiring rephrasing were identified. In round 2, QIs were discussed and refined in focus groups. In round 3, panellists rated new and revised QIs on importance and feasibility. The final list of QIs was created on the basis of panel consensus on importance.
Results
The review identified 98 studies, from which 44 candidate QIs were created for structures (n = 12), clinical processes (n = 22), and interpersonal processes of care (n = 10). In round 1 of the Delphi survey, consensus on importance was achieved for all QIs, 5 of which were identified as requiring rephrasing. Panellists suggested 10 new QIs. In round 2, the new and revised QIs were discussed in focus groups. In round 3, the new and revised QIs achieved consensus on importance, resulting in a final list of 54 QIs (n = 43 achieving consensus on feasibility).
Conclusions
These QIs can assist health care providers, administrators, and policymakers in optimising the quality of pregnancy care for people with disabilities.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada (JOGC) is Canada"s peer-reviewed journal of obstetrics, gynaecology, and women"s health. Each monthly issue contains original research articles, reviews, case reports, commentaries, and editorials on all aspects of reproductive health. JOGC is the original publication source of evidence-based clinical guidelines, committee opinions, and policy statements that derive from standing or ad hoc committees of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. JOGC is included in the National Library of Medicine"s MEDLINE database, and abstracts from JOGC are accessible on PubMed.