ArticleImplementation science : IS2014
Evaluation of quality improvement for cesarean sections caesarean section programmes through mixed methods.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Women's and communities' views of targeted educational interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section: a qualitative evidence synthesis.Reproductive health · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of dissemination strategies of maternal clinical guidelines: A narrative review.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2024Review
- Improving the Caesarean Decision by Robson Classification: A Population-Based Study by 5,323,500 Livebirth Data.Annals of global health · 2020Article
- Interventions targeted at health professionals to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections: a qualitative evidence synthesis.BMJ open · 2018Review
- What Are Optimal Cesarean Section Rates in the U.S. and How Do We Get There? A Review of Evidence-Based Recommendations and Interventions.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2017Review
- Barriers and enablers in the implementation of a program to reduce cesarean deliveries.Reproductive health · 2017Article
- Erratum to: 'Evaluation of quality improvement for cesarean sections programmes through mixed methods'.Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rate of avoidable caesarean sections (CS) could be reduced through multifaceted strategies focusing on the involvement of health professionals and compliance with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Quality improvements for CS (QICS) programmes (QICS) based on this approach, have been implemented in Canada and Spain.
objectivesTheir objectives are as follows: 1) Toto identify clusters in each setting with similar results in terms of cost-consequences, 2) Toto investigate whether demographic, clinical or context characteristics can distinguish these clusters, and 3) Toto explore the implementation of QICS in the 2 regions, in order to identify factors that have been facilitators in changing practices and reducing the use of obstetric intervention, as well as the challenges faced by hospitals in implementing the recommendations.
methodsDescriptive study with a quantitative and qualitative approach. 1) Cluster analysis at patient level with data from 16 hospitals in Quebec (Canada) (n = 105,348) and 15 hospitals in Andalusia (Spain) (n = 64,760). The outcome measures are CS and costs. For the cost, we will consider the intervention, delivery and complications in mother and baby, from the hospital perspective. Cluster analysis will be used to identify participants with similar patterns of CS and costs based, and t tests will be used to evaluate if the clusters differed in terms of characteristics: Hospital level (academic status of hospital, level of care, supply and demand factors), patient level (mother age, parity, gestational age, previous CS, previous pathology, presentation of the baby, baby birth weight). 2) Analysis of in-depth interviews with obstetricians and midwives in hospitals where the QICS were implemented, to explore the differences in delivery-related practices, and the importance of the different constructs for positive or negative adherence to CPGs. Dimensions: political/management level, hospital level, health professionals, mothers and their birth partner. DISCUSSION: This work sets out a new approach for programme evaluation, using different techniques to make it possible to take into account the specific context where the programmes were implemented.
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.