Implementing the INTERGROWTH-21st gestational dating and fetal and newborn growth standards in peri-urban Nairobi, Kenya: Provider experiences, uptake and clinical decision-making.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
14
10
2018
accepted:
19
02
2019
entrez:
9
3
2019
pubmed:
9
3
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Perinatal and newborn complications are major risk factors for unfavorable fetal and neonatal outcomes. Gestational dating and growth monitoring can be instrumental in the identification and management of high-risk pregnancies and births. The INTERGROWTH-21st Project developed the first global standards for gestational dating and fetal and newborn growth monitoring, supplying a toolkit for clinicians. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the first known implementation study of these standards in a low resource setting. The study was performed in two 12-month phases from March 2016 to March 2018 at Jacaranda Health, a private maternity hospital in peri-urban Nairobi, Kenya. In-depth interviews, focus group discussions and a provider survey were utilized to evaluate providers' experiences during implementation. Client chart data, for pregnant women attending antenatal care and/or delivering at Jacaranda Health along with their newborns, were captured to assess uptake and effect of the standards on clinical decision-making. Facility-level support and provider buy-in proved to be critical factors driving the success of implementing the standards. However, additional support was needed to strengthen capacity to conduct and interpret ultrasounds and maintain motivation among providers. We observed a significant increase in the uptake of obstetric ultrasounds, particularly gestational dating, during the implementation of the standards. Although no significant changes were detected in the identification of high-risk pregnancies, referrals and deliveries by Cesarean section during implementation, we did observe a significant reduction in inductions for post-date. No significant barriers were reported regarding the use of the newborn standards. Over 80% of providers advocated for the standards to remain in place with some enhancements related mainly to training, advocacy and procurement. The findings are timely with increasing global adoption of the standards and the challenging and multi-faceted nature of translating new, evidence-based guidelines into routine clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Perinatal and newborn complications are major risk factors for unfavorable fetal and neonatal outcomes. Gestational dating and growth monitoring can be instrumental in the identification and management of high-risk pregnancies and births. The INTERGROWTH-21st Project developed the first global standards for gestational dating and fetal and newborn growth monitoring, supplying a toolkit for clinicians. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the first known implementation study of these standards in a low resource setting.
METHODS
The study was performed in two 12-month phases from March 2016 to March 2018 at Jacaranda Health, a private maternity hospital in peri-urban Nairobi, Kenya. In-depth interviews, focus group discussions and a provider survey were utilized to evaluate providers' experiences during implementation. Client chart data, for pregnant women attending antenatal care and/or delivering at Jacaranda Health along with their newborns, were captured to assess uptake and effect of the standards on clinical decision-making.
RESULTS
Facility-level support and provider buy-in proved to be critical factors driving the success of implementing the standards. However, additional support was needed to strengthen capacity to conduct and interpret ultrasounds and maintain motivation among providers. We observed a significant increase in the uptake of obstetric ultrasounds, particularly gestational dating, during the implementation of the standards. Although no significant changes were detected in the identification of high-risk pregnancies, referrals and deliveries by Cesarean section during implementation, we did observe a significant reduction in inductions for post-date. No significant barriers were reported regarding the use of the newborn standards. Over 80% of providers advocated for the standards to remain in place with some enhancements related mainly to training, advocacy and procurement.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings are timely with increasing global adoption of the standards and the challenging and multi-faceted nature of translating new, evidence-based guidelines into routine clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30849125
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213388
pii: PONE-D-18-29657
pmc: PMC6407840
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0213388Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Sep;98(3):257-8
pubmed: 17466301
F1000Res. 2018 Mar 23;7:365
pubmed: 29707205
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 May;49:29-36
pubmed: 29550180
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Feb 17;14:73
pubmed: 24533878
BJOG. 2017 May;124(6):860-862
pubmed: 28190290
Trop Med Int Health. 2016 Jul;21(7):895-906
pubmed: 27125579
BJOG. 2013 Sep;120 Suppl 2:9-26, v
pubmed: 23678873
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jun;52(2):250-5
pubmed: 19407532
JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 Jun 22;7(6):e10293
pubmed: 29934289
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Glob Public Health. 2013;8(7):784-95
pubmed: 23914758
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;42(5):560-70
pubmed: 23335102
BJOG. 2013 Sep;120 Suppl 2:139-42, v
pubmed: 24028081
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;218(2S):S841-S854.e2
pubmed: 29273309
Trop Doct. 2008 Apr;38(2):125-6
pubmed: 18453515
Semin Perinatol. 2008 Jun;32(3):148-53
pubmed: 18482613
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 May 1;95(5):353-361
pubmed: 28479636
Reprod Health. 2013;10 Suppl 1:S2
pubmed: 24625129
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 14;(7):CD007058
pubmed: 26171896
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Jun 14;16(1):141
pubmed: 27301244
Lancet. 2017 Dec 17;388(10063):3027-3035
pubmed: 27839855
BJOG. 2013 Sep;120 Suppl 2:3-8, v
pubmed: 23678966
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 May 29;15:127
pubmed: 26021564
Crit Ultrasound J. 2015 Dec;7(1):28
pubmed: 26123609
Qual Health Res. 2014 Dec;24(12):1711-20
pubmed: 25212855
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Nov;97(11):1381-1387
pubmed: 29878301
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Mar 21;12:16
pubmed: 22436344
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2010 Aug;36(8):1267-72
pubmed: 20691916