Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33226353›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2020

Risk Perception of Health Professionals in Intrapartum Care Decisions: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

Nina H Peterwerth, Margareta Halek, Sabrina Tulka, Rainhild Schäfers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nina H PeterwerthDepartment of Applied Health Sciences - Midwifery, University of Applied Sciences-Hochschule für Gesundheit, Bochum, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0779-4184
Margareta HalekSchool of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5368-255X
Sabrina TulkaInstitute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6465-5167
Rainhild SchäfersDepartment of Applied Health Sciences - Midwifery, University of Applied Sciences-Hochschule für Gesundheit, Bochum, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7908-1154
Witten/Herdecke University · DEHochschule für Gesundheit - University of Applied Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRisk perception plays an important role in decision-making processes. Differences in obstetric intervention rates suggest that, in addition to medical indications, the risk perception of obstetric health professionals might have a major influence on their decision-making process during childbirth. Although studies have investigated whether risk perception affects the role of midwifery or influences decision making during childbirth, little is known about what obstetric health professionals actually perceive as risk or risky situations and whether different risk perceptions lead to more interventions during intrapartum care.

objectiveThe objective of this study is to understand the association of risk perception and the decision-making processes of obstetric health professionals (midwives and obstetricians) in Germany during intrapartum care. The study has 3 specific aims: (1) gain insight into what obstetric health professionals perceive as risk in the German clinical setting, (2) assess the extent to which personal and systemic factors have an impact on obstetric health professionals' risk perception, and (3) investigate whether different perceptions of risk are associated with different decisions being made by obstetric health professionals.

methodsThis is an exploratory sequential mixed methods study with 2 phases, a qualitative followed by a quantitative phase. In the first phase, qualitative data are collected and analyzed by conducting focus group discussions and applying qualitative content analysis to address aim 1. In the second phase, for aims 2 and 3 and to help explain the qualitative results, quantitative data are collected and analyzed by conducting an observational study using case vignettes within a survey constructed on the basis of the qualitative results.

resultsEnrollment in the first (qualitative) phase began in July 2019, and data collection and analysis have been completed. The second (quantitative) phase is currently planned, and data collection is expected to start in December 2020. First results of the qualitative phase are expected to be submitted for publication in 2020, with completion of the second phase scheduled for 2021.

conclusionsThis mixed methods study will examine the perception of risk and its association with the decision-making processes of obstetric health professionals during their care of women in childbirth. The rationale for this approach is that the qualitative data and their analysis explore participants' views in more depth, while the quantitative data will help to provide and explore a general understanding of the research problem. The results are expected to be relevant to health care professionals, policymakers, and educational institutions in order to minimize underuse, overuse, and misuse of interventions during intrapartum care.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017172; https://tinyurl.com/y2zoowkx. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21443.

Indexed as

decision makingfocus group discussionmidwivesmixed methodsobstetric health professionalsobstetriciansrisk perception

Identifiers

PMID33226353
PMCPMC7721551
OpenAlexW3108161948

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.