ArticleQuality & safety in health care2003
Guidelines and management of mild hypertensive conditions in pregnancy in rural general practices in Scotland: issues of appropriateness and access.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards a better understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care: A systematic scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
- Quality of prenatal care questionnaire: psychometric testing in an Australia population.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2015Article
- Sustainable maternity services in remote and rural Scotland? A qualitative survey of staff views on required skills, competencies and training.Quality & safety in health care · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnosis and management of mild non-proteinuric hypertension in pregnancy in rural general practices against guideline recommendations.
designPostal survey and telephone interview.
settingAll 174 designated rural general practices in Scotland. SAMPLE: 171 GPs and 158 midwives responsible for antenatal care stratified by distance from a specialist maternity hospital.
main outcome measuresAccuracy of diagnosis and appropriateness of management compared with guideline.
resultsAt least one respondent replied for 91% (158/174) of rural practices. Response rates were 68% (117/170) for GPs and 77% (121/158) for midwives. Both GP and midwife replied for 46% (80/174) of practices. Most GPs (80%, 87/109) and midwives (63%, 71/113) overdiagnosed the scenario. Intended management was therefore most often referral or admission to specialist hospital (59%, 132/224), both courses of action beyond guideline recommendations. There was an association between distance of practice from specialist maternity hospital and professionals' report of intended referral or admission. Explanatory factors from telephone interviews included a poor knowledge base, cautious risk assessment, and perceived inflexibility of guidelines for remote situations.
conclusionsThere is a lack of accuracy in the diagnosis of a common antenatal problem and intended management is consistent with overdiagnosis. The results suggest that women in rural settings may experience more antenatal referrals and admissions than are clinically appropriate according to the guidelines. At a time of increasing centralisation of maternity services, this could increase inappropriate referrals and increase costs to service and patients. Quality of care may be improved by developing consensual local guidelines with rural maternity care professionals and support maintained skills and confidence in decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.