Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32182282›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Adherence to clinical practice guidelines for South Australian pregnant women with cardiac conditions between 2003 and 2013.

Sandra Millington, Margaret Arstall, Gustaaf Dekker, Judith Magarey, Robyn Clark

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sandra MillingtonAdelaide Nursing School and Adelaide Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8108-8870
Margaret ArstallDepartment of Cardiology at the Northern Adelaide Local Health Network (NAHLN) and the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia.
Gustaaf DekkerObstetrics & Gynaecology for the Women's and Children's Division of Northern Adelaide Health Network (Lyell McEwin Hospital and Modbury Hospitals) and the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia.
Judith MagareyAdelaide Nursing School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia.
Robyn ClarkCollege of Nursing and Health Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia.
The University of Adelaide · AUFlinders University · AUModbury Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor pregnant women with a known cardiac condition or those who develop cardiac disease during pregnancy, there is an increased risk of complications during pregnancy, to both mother and foetus. To reduce this risk, best practice guidelines have been developed and available in South Australia for several years. Measuring clinical practice against the guideline recommendations verifies real-life practice and an essential part of any clinical practice quality improvement project by identifying gaps. This study is the first report on adherence to statewide perinatal guidelines for these women in South Australia.

objectivesTo evaluate adherence to evidence-based clinical practice perinatal guidelinesTo identify predictors of adherence.Make comparisons across three practice settings examined.

designA retrospective cross-sectional observational design that analysed data from medical records.

settingThree SA Health public metropolitan, university-affiliated teaching hospitals with an obstetric service within a ten-year timeframe (2003-2013).

participants271 admissions of women who were categorised as 'pre-existent' or 'newly acquired' cardiac condition during their pregnancy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to guidelines was measured using a purposefully designed scoring system across the three sites. The researcher chose a minimum acceptable score of 17 applicable to the 'newly acquired' group and 35 for the 'pre-existent' group.

resultsOverall adherence to the perinatal guidelines for the combined groups (n = 271) reported a mean score of 16.3, SD ± 6.7, with a median score of 17. Women in the 'newly acquired' group scored less compared to women in the 'pre-existent' group (Estimate -2.3, CI -3.9,-0.7). Variance in adherence was observed across the three hospitals (P value <0.0001). The most significant predictor of adherence to guidelines was pre-pregnancy cardiac consultation which increased the likelihood of preconception care by Odds ratio 18.5 (95%, CI 2, 168). Similarly, compliance with mental health screening was associated with improved adherence to antenatal assessments (OR: 11.3(95% CI 4.7, 27.3).

conclusionThere was overall suboptimal adherence to the statewide guidelines for women with cardiac conditions in pregnancy. The variance in the level of adherence across the three hospitals correlated with the exposure to higher acuity cases, and that appropriate up- referral to a higher acuity hospital was intrinsically linked to better adherence. Recommendations include preconception counselling, and to ensure that all health practitioners have the skills, sufficient training and time to complete a comprehensive initial antenatal assessment.

trial registrationACTRN12617000417381.

Indexed as

Heart DiseasesAdultAustraliaBody Mass IndexCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMedical RecordsPregnancyPregnant PeopleRetrospective StudiesSouth AustraliaTreatment Adherence and ComplianceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32182282
PMCPMC7077829
OpenAlexW3011484163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.