Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32952697›Full record

ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2020

The Perinatal Loss Care Educational Programme and its Evaluation.

Kateřina Ratislavová, Martina Štípková

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  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

2 authors.

Kateřina RatislavováUniversity of West Bohemia, Nursing and Midwifery, nám. Odboje 18, 32300 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Martina ŠtípkováUniversity of West Bohemia, Faculty of Philosophy, Univerzitní 8, 30100 Pilsen, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWorking with bereaved parents is an immense challenge for professionals in the field of perinatal care and requires a high level of knowledge and skill. This article aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Perinatal Loss Care blended educational programme.

methodsAn evaluative assessment was carried out using a scored questionnaire to gather pre- and post-programme data. Participants were medical and healthcare professionals (n=200) who participated in the programme voluntarily (the Medical Professional/Motivated group and the Others group) or were selected by their employer and for whom attendance was mandatory (the Medical Professional/Non/Motivated group).

resultsParticipants' perception of their own knowledge and understanding of perinatal bereavement care was significantly higher on completion of the educational programme, proving its effectivity. There was a statistically significant effect on overall score in individual groups of respondents, as well as the whole set (p<0.001), with post-intervention scores higher than pre-intervention scores. No statistically significant differences in overall score were detected before participation in the educational programme in individual groups (p=0.204). Participants from the Medical Professional/Non/Motivated group achieved lower post-intervention scores to a significantly greater extent (p<0.05) and more often perceived the educational programme as being "very difficult" (χ

conclusionsThe educational programme was assessed as effective. Care of bereaved parents has its specifics and healthcare professionals should possess a basic knowledge of how to provide sensitive care during this time.

Indexed as

blended learningeducationevaluation researchhealthcare professionalsperinatal loss care

Identifiers

PMID32952697
PMCPMC7478081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.