Lauren Kearney, Bec Jenkinson, Christoph Lehner, Victoria Eley, Nicole Marsh, Deanne August, Susan de Jersey, Nigel Lee
{"title":"真实的消费者-临床医生共同设计的劳动和分娩干预,以优化产妇在劳动中的水合作用:达成共识,提高严谨性。","authors":"Lauren Kearney, Bec Jenkinson, Christoph Lehner, Victoria Eley, Nicole Marsh, Deanne August, Susan de Jersey, Nigel Lee","doi":"10.1111/hex.70438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Medical interventions during labour and childbirth have rarely been designed with end-users, including frontline clinicians and consumers of maternity care. This has resulted in difficulties in evidence uptake, translation and acceptability by those who it is designed to help. Diverse views of ‘what is best’ in research interventions and approaches exist, yet arguably, if consensus can be reached, more rigorous and acceptable interventions will ensue. One such area of uncertainty is hydration management in induced labour, with an increasing reliance on intravenous therapy, without high-quality evidence pervasive across maternity settings. Therefore, we aimed to co-design a labour and childbirth intervention to optimise maternal physiology during labour, through evidence synthesis, consumer survey and a consensus-generating activity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A multi-modal, intervention co-design study was undertaken. This involved three key stages: evidence-synthesis, consumer-survey and then a modified nominal group technique workshop to reach consensus on the intervention design. The whole process took place between April and November, 2023 in South-East Queensland, Australia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In total, 96 completed responses were returned in the consumer survey, detailing women's preferences for hydration management during induced labour. This informed a Nominal Group Technique Workshop, inclusive of consumers, midwives, obstetricians, lactation consultants, dietitians, clinical trialists, neonatologists and nurses. Following robust discussion and various viewpoints presented, the expert reference group decided to support an approach whereby women would self-determine their own intake during induced labour and that the routine administration of intravenous fluids as a ‘side-line’ (current ‘standard practice’) to the synthetic oxytocin (labour hormone) infusion for induction of labour would not be routinely administered. In order to provide information/education to women on how best to optimise their hydration, a co-designed information brochure was developed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>What clinicians and researchers may assume is important as interventions and outcomes in a clinical trial may not always align with the opinions and lived experience of consumers. Incorporating co-design into trial protocol development has the potential to improve the relevance of research to the target population. This in turn may improve trial feasibility through enhanced recruitment, intervention and treatment adherence, and fidelity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>People with lived experience (inclusive of both first-time mothers who had recently experienced a labour induction; and two maternity consumers involved in advocacy and research work to optimise labour and birth care) were involved in several parts of this study. This included study conceptualisation, data collection and analysis, interpretation and authorship of manuscript.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70438","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Authentic Consumer–Clinician Co-Design of a Labour and Childbirth Intervention to Optimise Maternal Hydration in Labour: Reaching Consensus to Enhance Rigour\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Kearney, Bec Jenkinson, Christoph Lehner, Victoria Eley, Nicole Marsh, Deanne August, Susan de Jersey, Nigel Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hex.70438\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Medical interventions during labour and childbirth have rarely been designed with end-users, including frontline clinicians and consumers of maternity care. This has resulted in difficulties in evidence uptake, translation and acceptability by those who it is designed to help. Diverse views of ‘what is best’ in research interventions and approaches exist, yet arguably, if consensus can be reached, more rigorous and acceptable interventions will ensue. One such area of uncertainty is hydration management in induced labour, with an increasing reliance on intravenous therapy, without high-quality evidence pervasive across maternity settings. Therefore, we aimed to co-design a labour and childbirth intervention to optimise maternal physiology during labour, through evidence synthesis, consumer survey and a consensus-generating activity.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A multi-modal, intervention co-design study was undertaken. This involved three key stages: evidence-synthesis, consumer-survey and then a modified nominal group technique workshop to reach consensus on the intervention design. The whole process took place between April and November, 2023 in South-East Queensland, Australia.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>In total, 96 completed responses were returned in the consumer survey, detailing women's preferences for hydration management during induced labour. This informed a Nominal Group Technique Workshop, inclusive of consumers, midwives, obstetricians, lactation consultants, dietitians, clinical trialists, neonatologists and nurses. Following robust discussion and various viewpoints presented, the expert reference group decided to support an approach whereby women would self-determine their own intake during induced labour and that the routine administration of intravenous fluids as a ‘side-line’ (current ‘standard practice’) to the synthetic oxytocin (labour hormone) infusion for induction of labour would not be routinely administered. In order to provide information/education to women on how best to optimise their hydration, a co-designed information brochure was developed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>What clinicians and researchers may assume is important as interventions and outcomes in a clinical trial may not always align with the opinions and lived experience of consumers. Incorporating co-design into trial protocol development has the potential to improve the relevance of research to the target population. This in turn may improve trial feasibility through enhanced recruitment, intervention and treatment adherence, and fidelity.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>People with lived experience (inclusive of both first-time mothers who had recently experienced a labour induction; and two maternity consumers involved in advocacy and research work to optimise labour and birth care) were involved in several parts of this study. This included study conceptualisation, data collection and analysis, interpretation and authorship of manuscript.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Expectations\",\"volume\":\"28 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70438\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Expectations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70438\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70438","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Authentic Consumer–Clinician Co-Design of a Labour and Childbirth Intervention to Optimise Maternal Hydration in Labour: Reaching Consensus to Enhance Rigour
Introduction
Medical interventions during labour and childbirth have rarely been designed with end-users, including frontline clinicians and consumers of maternity care. This has resulted in difficulties in evidence uptake, translation and acceptability by those who it is designed to help. Diverse views of ‘what is best’ in research interventions and approaches exist, yet arguably, if consensus can be reached, more rigorous and acceptable interventions will ensue. One such area of uncertainty is hydration management in induced labour, with an increasing reliance on intravenous therapy, without high-quality evidence pervasive across maternity settings. Therefore, we aimed to co-design a labour and childbirth intervention to optimise maternal physiology during labour, through evidence synthesis, consumer survey and a consensus-generating activity.
Methods
A multi-modal, intervention co-design study was undertaken. This involved three key stages: evidence-synthesis, consumer-survey and then a modified nominal group technique workshop to reach consensus on the intervention design. The whole process took place between April and November, 2023 in South-East Queensland, Australia.
Results
In total, 96 completed responses were returned in the consumer survey, detailing women's preferences for hydration management during induced labour. This informed a Nominal Group Technique Workshop, inclusive of consumers, midwives, obstetricians, lactation consultants, dietitians, clinical trialists, neonatologists and nurses. Following robust discussion and various viewpoints presented, the expert reference group decided to support an approach whereby women would self-determine their own intake during induced labour and that the routine administration of intravenous fluids as a ‘side-line’ (current ‘standard practice’) to the synthetic oxytocin (labour hormone) infusion for induction of labour would not be routinely administered. In order to provide information/education to women on how best to optimise their hydration, a co-designed information brochure was developed.
Conclusion
What clinicians and researchers may assume is important as interventions and outcomes in a clinical trial may not always align with the opinions and lived experience of consumers. Incorporating co-design into trial protocol development has the potential to improve the relevance of research to the target population. This in turn may improve trial feasibility through enhanced recruitment, intervention and treatment adherence, and fidelity.
Patient or Public Contribution
People with lived experience (inclusive of both first-time mothers who had recently experienced a labour induction; and two maternity consumers involved in advocacy and research work to optimise labour and birth care) were involved in several parts of this study. This included study conceptualisation, data collection and analysis, interpretation and authorship of manuscript.
期刊介绍:
Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including:
• Person-centred care and quality improvement
• Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management
• Public perceptions of health services
• Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting
• Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation
• Empowerment and consumerism
• Patients'' role in safety and quality
• Patient and public role in health services research
• Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy
Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.