Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37978505›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Antenatal ultrasound needs-analysis survey of Australian rural/remote healthcare clinicians: recommendations for improved service quality and access.

Amber Bidner, Eva Bezak, Nayana Parange

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Amber BidnerAllied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Corner of North Terrace and Frome Road, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia. Amber.Bidner@unisa.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-7491-517X
Eva BezakAllied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Corner of North Terrace and Frome Road, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1315-1735
Nayana ParangeAllied Health and Human Performance, The University of South Australia, Corner of North Terrace and Frome Road, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0069-1932

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasound is the primary diagnostic tool in pregnancy, capable of identifying high-risk pregnancies and life-threatening conditions, allowing for appropriate management to prevent maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Women and babies from rural and remote Australia and low-resource areas worldwide experience poorer health outcomes and barriers to accessing antenatal care and imaging services. Healthcare clinicians working in these regions face significant challenges practising with limited resources and accessing training opportunities.

objectiveTo perform an exploratory needs-analysis survey investigating the availability, accessibility and use of antenatal ultrasound in rural Australia, exploring rural clinicians' interest in and access to ultrasound training opportunities.

methodsThe survey tool for this cross-sectional study was designed and distributed as an anonymous online questionnaire targeting healthcare clinicians (doctors, nurses, midwives, clinic managers, Aboriginal healthcare workers) providing antenatal care in rural regions. Descriptive analysis was applied to quantitative data and thematic analysis was used to explore qualitative components.

resultsA total of 114 valid survey responses were analysed. Overall, 39% (43/111) reported ultrasound was not used when providing antenatal care to patients at their clinic, stating 'Lack of ultrasound equipment (73%,29/40) and inaccessibility of training opportunities (47%,19/40) as the main reasons. For those with ultrasound (61%,68/111), estimating due date (89%,57/64) was the main use, and limited training/skills to operate the equipment (59%,38/64) and inaccessibility/distance of training opportunities (45%,29/64) were the most commonly reported barriers. Clinicians described a lack of childcare options (73%,74/102), long distances to reach ultrasound services (64%,65/102), appointment (59%,60/102) and transport availability/times (46%,47/102) as the main obstacles to patient access. Increased attendance, compliance with care directives, parental bonding and improved lifestyle choices were described by respondents as positive outcomes of antenatal ultrasound use.

conclusionsFuture efforts to combat inequitable service access must adopt a coordinated approach to meet the needs of pregnant women in low-resource settings. Providing portable ultrasound equipment, training in antenatal Point-of-Care ultrasound (PoCUS) with ongoing support/mentoring and accreditation of health professionals could strengthen rural workforce capacity. This, along with addressing the complex economic, environmental and socio-cultural barriers faced by patients, could improve service access and pregnancy outcomes in rural and remote communities.

Indexed as

Rural Health ServicesAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesAntenatalLow-resource settingMedical education/trainingObstetricsPoint-of-Care Ultrasound (PoCUS)Rural/remoteService equalityUltrasound (US)

Identifiers

PMID37978505
PMCPMC10655468

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.