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。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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,&nbsp;Bec Jenkinson,&nbsp;Christoph Lehner,&nbsp;Victoria Eley,&nbsp;Nicole Marsh,&nbsp;Deanne August,&nbsp;Susan de Jersey,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Bec Jenkinson,&nbsp;Christoph Lehner,&nbsp;Victoria Eley,&nbsp;Nicole Marsh,&nbsp;Deanne August,&nbsp;Susan de Jersey,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:分娩和分娩期间的医疗干预措施很少是针对终端用户设计的,包括一线临床医生和产妇护理的消费者。这导致了证据的吸收、翻译和被旨在帮助的人接受方面的困难。关于研究干预措施和方法中“什么是最好的”存在不同的观点,然而可以说,如果能够达成共识,将会出现更严格和可接受的干预措施。其中一个不确定的领域是引产中的水合作用管理,越来越依赖静脉注射治疗,没有高质量的证据普遍存在于产科环境中。因此,我们旨在通过证据综合、消费者调查和达成共识的活动,共同设计一种分娩和分娩干预措施,以优化分娩期间的产妇生理。方法:采用多模式、干预联合设计研究。这包括三个关键阶段:证据合成,消费者调查,然后是一个改良的名义小组技术研讨会,以达成对干预设计的共识。整个过程于2023年4月至11月在澳大利亚昆士兰州东南部进行。结果:在消费者调查中,总共有96份完整的回复被返回,详细说明了妇女在引产期间对水合管理的偏好。这通知了一个名义小组技术研讨会,包括消费者、助产士、产科医生、哺乳顾问、营养师、临床试验学家、新生儿学家和护士。经过激烈的讨论和各种观点的提出,专家参考小组决定支持一种方法,即妇女在引产过程中自行决定自己的摄入量,而作为引产人工合成催产素(分娩激素)输注的“辅助”常规静脉输液(目前的“标准做法”)将不再常规使用。为了向妇女提供关于如何最好地优化补水的信息/教育,编写了一份共同设计的信息小册子。结论:临床医生和研究人员的假设是重要的,因为临床试验中的干预措施和结果可能并不总是与消费者的意见和生活经验一致。将共同设计纳入试验方案制定有可能提高研究与目标人群的相关性。这反过来又可以通过加强招募、干预和治疗依从性以及保真度来提高试验的可行性。患者或公众贡献:有生活经验的人(包括最近经历过引产的第一次母亲;以及参与宣传和研究工作以优化分娩和分娩护理的两位产妇消费者)参与了本研究的几个部分。这包括研究概念,数据收集和分析,解释和手稿的作者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Authentic Consumer–Clinician Co-Design of a Labour and Childbirth Intervention to Optimise Maternal Hydration in Labour: Reaching Consensus to Enhance Rigour

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.

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
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
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