ArticlePloS one2023
Evaluation of the FAST-M maternal sepsis intervention in Pakistan: A qualitative exploratory study.
Article in PloS one, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe World Health Organization and partners developed and evaluated a maternity-specific sepsis care bundle called 'FAST-M' for low-resource settings. However, this bundle has not yet been studied in Asia. Our study sought to evaluate the perceptions of healthcare providers about the implementation of the FAST-M intervention in Pakistan. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was conducted at a public sector hospital in Hyderabad. We conducted three focus group discussions with healthcare providers including doctors, nurses, and healthcare administrators (n = 22) who implemented the FAST-M intervention. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as a guiding framework for data collection and analysis. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach and deductive methods.
resultsFive overarching themes emerged: (I) FAST-M intervention and its significance including HCPs believing in the advantages of using the intervention to improve clinical practices; (II) Influence of outer and inner settings including non-availability of resources in the facility for sepsis care; (III) HCPs perceptions about sustainability, which were positive (IV) Integration into the clinical setting including HCPs views on the existing gaps, for example, shortage of HCPs and communication gaps, and their recommendations to improve these; and (V) Outcomes of the intervention including improved clinical processes and outcomes using the FAST-M intervention. Significant improvement in patient monitoring and FAST-M bundle completion within an hour of diagnosis of sepsis was reported by the HCPs.
conclusionsThe healthcare providers' views were positive about the intervention, its outcomes, and long-term sustainability. The qualitative data provided findings on the acceptability of the overall implementation processes to support subsequent scaling up of the intervention.
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.