SynthesisBMJ open2023
Health engagement: a systematic review of tools modifiable for use with vulnerable pregnant women.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine available health engagement tools suitable to, or modifiable for, vulnerable pregnant populations.
designSystematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original studies of tool development and validation related to health engagement, with abstract available in English, published between 2000 and 2022, sampling people receiving outpatient healthcare including pregnant women. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL Complete, Medline, EMBASE and PubMed were searched in April 2022. RISK OF BIAS: Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using an adapted COSMIN risk of bias quality appraisal checklist. Tools were also mapped against the Synergistic Health Engagement model, which centres on women's buy-in to maternity care. INCLUDED STUDIES: Nineteen studies were included from Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the USA. Four tools were used with pregnant populations, two tools with vulnerable non-pregnant populations, six tools measured patient-provider relationship, four measured patient activation, and three tools measured both relationship and activation.
resultsTools that measured engagement in maternity care assessed some of the following constructs: communication or information sharing, woman-centred care, health guidance, shared decision-making, sufficient time, availability, provider attributes, discriminatory or respectful care. None of the maternity engagement tools assessed the key construct of buy-in. While non-maternity health engagement tools measured some elements of buy-in (self-care, feeling hopeful about treatment), other elements (disclosing risks to healthcare providers and acting on health advice), which are significant for vulnerable populations, were rarely measured. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Health engagement is hypothesised as the mechanism by which midwifery-led care reduces the risk of perinatal morbidity for vulnerable women. To test this hypothesis, a new assessment tool is required that addresses all the relevant constructs of the Synergistic Health Engagement model, developed for and psychometrically assessed in the target group. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020214102.
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.