采用改进rand的德尔菲法制定残疾人孕期护理质量指标。

Kyara J Liu, Evelina Pituch, Kathryn Barrett, Anne Berndl, Lisa Graves, Yona Lunsky, Marina Vainder, Andi Camden, Meredith Evans, Lesley A Tarasoff, Hilary K Brown
{"title":"采用改进rand的德尔菲法制定残疾人孕期护理质量指标。","authors":"Kyara J Liu, Evelina Pituch, Kathryn Barrett, Anne Berndl, Lisa Graves, Yona Lunsky, Marina Vainder, Andi Camden, Meredith Evans, Lesley A Tarasoff, Hilary K Brown","doi":"10.1016/j.jogc.2025.103106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to develop quality indicators (QIs) for pregnancy care of people with disabilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These QIs can assist health care providers, administrators, and policymakers in optimising the quality of pregnancy care for people with disabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":520287,"journal":{"name":"Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC","volume":" ","pages":"103106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of Quality Indicators for Pregnancy Care of People With Disabilities Using a RAND-Modified Delphi Method.\",\"authors\":\"Kyara J Liu, Evelina Pituch, Kathryn Barrett, Anne Berndl, Lisa Graves, Yona Lunsky, Marina Vainder, Andi Camden, Meredith Evans, Lesley A Tarasoff, Hilary K Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jogc.2025.103106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to develop quality indicators (QIs) for pregnancy care of people with disabilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These QIs can assist health care providers, administrators, and policymakers in optimising the quality of pregnancy care for people with disabilities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520287,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"103106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"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 : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2025.103106\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2025.103106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:建立残疾人孕期护理质量指标体系。方法:采用rand修正的德尔菲法。我们首先对Medline、EMBASE、PsycInfo和CINAHL 2004-2024进行了范围综述,以确定与残疾人妊娠护理的结构、临床过程和人际过程相关的候选QIs。然后,由17名妊娠护理提供者和10名残疾分娩人员组成的专家小组在6/2023-10/2024期间进行了3轮德尔菲研究,对QIs草案进行了验证。在第一轮中,小组成员根据调查中的重要性和可行性对QIs草案进行评级。确定了新的质量指标和需要重新表述的质量指标。在第二轮中,在焦点小组中讨论和完善质量指标。在第三轮中,小组成员根据重要性和可行性对新的和修订后的质量指标进行评级。最终的QIs列表是基于小组对重要性的共识而创建的。结果:本综述确定了98项研究,从中创建了n = 44个候选质量指标,涉及结构(n = 12)、临床过程(n = 22)和护理人际过程(n = 10)。在德尔菲调查的第一轮中,对所有QIs的重要性达成了共识,其中5个被确定为需要重新措辞。小组成员提出了10个新的质量指标。在第二轮中,焦点小组讨论了新的和修订后的质量指标。在第3轮中,新的和修订的质量指标在重要性上达成了共识,从而产生了54个质量指标的最终列表(n = 43个在可行性上达成了共识)。结论:这些质量指标可以帮助医疗服务提供者、管理人员和决策者优化残疾人妊娠护理的质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of Quality Indicators for Pregnancy Care of People With Disabilities Using a RAND-Modified Delphi Method.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信