The Acceptability of Implementing Patient-reported Measures in Routine Maternity Care: A Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

Publisher Wiley

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2023 Jan 17

PMID 36647292

Authors

An Chen

Kirsi Vayrynen

Riikka-Leena Leskela

Paulus Torkki

Seppo Heinonen

Aydin Tekay

Ganesh Acharya

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-reported measures (PRMs) are becoming popular as they might influence clinical decisions, help to deliver patient-centered care, and improve health care quality. However, the limited knowledge and consensus about the acceptability of implementing PRMs in maternity care hinder their widespread use in clinical practice, and evidence-based recommendations are lacking. This systematic review aims to synthesize available evidence on the acceptability of implementing PRMs in routine maternity care.

Material And Methods: Literature on the implementation of PRMs in maternity care was electronically searched in six databases (PsycARTICLES, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL), screened and selected for the topic of "acceptability". Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was used as the basic framework guiding data analysis and synthesis. Evidence was thematically analyzed and synthesized. Mixed Method Appraisal Tool and GRADE-CERQual approach were used to assess the quality of studies and evaluate the confidence in the review findings.

Results: Overall, 4971 articles were screened. From 24 studies, we identified five themes regarding the acceptability of implementing PRMs in routine maternity care: (1) user's action and behavior, (2) stakeholders' attitudes, (3) perceived benefits, (4) perceived challenges and risks, and (5) stakeholders' preferences and suggestions on implementation. While pregnant and postpartum women, health professionals and other stakeholders involved in maternity care were generally positive about the implementation of PRMs in routine care and recognized the potential benefits (eg health improvement, women empowerment, care and services improvement and healthcare system advancement), they pointed out possible challenges and risks in answering PRMs questions, responding to answers, and setting up integrated information systems as well as suggested solutions in the aspects of PRMs data collection, follow-up care, and system-level management. The confidence in the review findings was moderate due to methodological limitations of included studies.

Conclusions: Available empirical evidence suggested that the use of PRMs in routine maternity care is acceptable among stakeholders involved in maternity care and the potential benefits of its integration in routine clinical practice to healthcare improvement has been recognized. However, possible challenges in data collection, follow-up care arrangement and system-level integration should be appropriately addressed.

Citing Articles

The feasibility of implementing a digital pregnancy and postpartum support program in the Midwestern United States and the association with maternal and infant health.

Klein C, Dalstrom M, Bond W, McGarvey J, Cooling M, Zumpf K Prev Med Rep. 2025; 49():102953.

PMID: 39834381 PMC: 11743335. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102953.

Acceptability of identification and management of perinatal anxiety: a qualitative interview study with postnatal women.

Meades R, Moran P, Hutton U, Khan R, Maxwell M, Cheyne H Front Public Health. 2024; 12:1466150.

PMID: 39575102 PMC: 11579707. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1466150.

Roles of different organizations in implementing patient-reported measures in routine maternity care in Finland.

Vayrynen K, Chen A, Heinonen S, Tekay A, Torkki P J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024; 8(1):117.

PMID: 39361084 PMC: 11450123. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-024-00793-x.

Psychometric properties of the maternal breastfeeding evaluation scale: a confirmatory factor analysis.

Escribano S, Herrero-Oliver R, Oliver-Roig A, Richart-Martinez M BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024; 24(1):486.

PMID: 39026186 PMC: 11264472. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06693-8.

Acceptability and content validity of suicidality screening items: a qualitative study with perinatal women.

Dudeney E, Coates R, Ayers S, McCabe R Front Psychiatry. 2024; 15:1359076.

PMID: 38666087 PMC: 11044181. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1359076.

References

Dickinson F, McCauley M, Smith H, van den Broek N . Patient reported outcome measures for use in pregnancy and childbirth: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19(1):155. PMC: 6501313. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2318-3. View

Nishizono-Maher A, Kishimoto J, Yoshida H, Urayama K, Miyato M, Otsuka Y . The role of self-report questionnaire in the screening of postnatal depression- a community sample survey in central Tokyo. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004; 39(3):185-90. DOI: 10.1007/s00127-004-0727-7. View

Howell D, Molloy S, Wilkinson K, Green E, Orchard K, Wang K . Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26(9):1846-1858. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv181. View

Lawson A, Dalfen A, Murphy K, Milligan N, Lancee W . Use of Text Messaging for Postpartum Depression Screening and Information Provision. Psychiatr Serv. 2019; 70(5):389-395. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.201800269. View

Black N . Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013; 346:f167. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f167. View

Depla A, Ernst-Smelt H, Poels M, Crombag N, Franx A, Bekker M . A feasibility study of implementing a patient-centered outcome set for pregnancy and childbirth. Health Sci Rep. 2020; 3(3):e168. PMC: 7317300. DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.168. View

Pineros-Leano M, Tabb K, Sears H, Meline B, Huang H . Clinic staff attitudes towards the use of mHealth technology to conduct perinatal depression screenings: a qualitative study. Fam Pract. 2014; 32(2):211-5. PMC: 7340322. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmu083. View

Dickinson F, Madaj B, Muchemi O, Ameh C . Assessing quality of care in maternity services in low and middle-income countries: Development of a Maternity Patient Reported Outcome Measure. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023; 2(3):e0000062. PMC: 10021686. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000062. View

Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S . The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002; 14(5):353-8. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/14.5.353. View

10.

Willey S, Blackmore R, Gibson-Helm M, Ali R, Boyd L, McBride J . "If you don't ask … you don't tell": Refugee women's perspectives on perinatal mental health screening. Women Birth. 2019; 33(5):e429-e437. DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.10.003. View

11.

Reilly N, Austin M . Attitudes and Engagement of Pregnant and Postnatal Women With a Web-Based Emotional Health Tool (Mummatters): Cross-sectional Study. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(3):e18517. PMC: 8088843. DOI: 10.2196/18517. View

12.

Chen A, Vayrynen K, Leskela R, Heinonen S, Lillrank P, Tekay A . A qualitative study on professionals' attitudes and views towards the introduction of patient reported measures into public maternity care pathway. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):645. PMC: 8254939. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06658-z. View

13.

Kim H, Geppert J, Quan T, Bracha Y, Lupo V, Cutts D . Screening for postpartum depression among low-income mothers using an interactive voice response system. Matern Child Health J. 2011; 16(4):921-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10995-011-0817-6. View

14.

Londero A, Rossetti E, Pittini C, Cagnacci A, Driul L . Maternal age and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19(1):261. PMC: 6651936. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2400-x. View

15.

van Egdom L, Oemrawsingh A, Verweij L, Lingsma H, Koppert L, Verhoef C . Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Breast Cancer Care: A Systematic Review. Value Health. 2019; 22(10):1197-1226. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1927. View

16.

Depla A, Crombag N, Franx A, Bekker M . Implementation of a standard outcome set in perinatal care: a qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators from all stakeholder perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1):113. PMC: 7852077. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06121-z. View

17.

Bayrampour H, McNeil D, Benzies K, Salmon C, Gelb K, Tough S . A qualitative inquiry on pregnant women's preferences for mental health screening. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17(1):339. PMC: 5627476. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-017-1512-4. View

18.

Kim H, Bracha Y, Tipnis A . Automated depression screening in disadvantaged pregnant women in an urban obstetric clinic. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2007; 10(4):163-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00737-007-0189-5. View

19.

Chen A, Vayrynen K, Leskela R, Torkki P, Heinonen S, Tekay A . The acceptability of implementing patient-reported measures in routine maternity care: A systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023; 102(4):406-419. PMC: 10008272. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14506. View

20.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel D, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C . PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 75:40-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021. View