ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2020
Transfer of an interprofessional emergency caesarean section training program: using questionnaire combined with outcome data of newborn.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomised study on the comparative performance of German paramedics after technical versus non-technical skills training.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Trial
- Breaking myths and building awareness: spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in Palestine-what women know and what holds them backs- a cross- sectional study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Perinatal outcome of emergency cesarean section under neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia: a seven-year retrospective analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
- Influence of presence in an inter-professional simulation training of the emergency caesarean section: a cross-sectional questionnaire study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Observational
- Describing the evidence linking interprofessional education interventions to improving the delivery of safe and effective patient care: a scoping review.Journal of interprofessional careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
puproseAn emergency caesarean section is a potentially life-threatening situation both for the mother and the newborn. Non-technical skills can be improved by simulation training and are necessary to manage this urgent situation successfully. The objective of this study was to investigate, if training of emergency caesarean section can be transferred into daily work to improve the outcome parameters pH an APGAR of the newborn.
methodsIn this pre-post study, 141 professionals took part in a training for emergency caesarean section. Participants received a questionnaire, based on the tools "Training Evaluation Inventory" and "Transfer Climate Questionnaire" 1 year after training. Outcome data of the newborn were collected from the hospitals information system.
resultsExcept the scale "extinction", Cronbach's alpha was higher than 0.62. All scales were rated lower than 2.02 on a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = fullest approval; 5 = complete rejection). "Negative reinforcement" was rated with 2.87 (SD 0.73). There were no significant differences in outcome data prior. The questionnaire fulfils criteria for application except the scale "extinction".
conclusionThe presented training course was perceived as useful by the professionals and attitudes toward training were positive; the content was positively reinforced in practice 1 year after training. Parameters of the newborn did not change. It is conceivable that other outcome parameters (e.g. posttraumatic stress disorder) are addressed by the training. The development of relevant outcome parameters for the quality of emergency sections needs further investigation.
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.