Outcomes of interventions in neonatal sepsis: A systematic review of qualitative research.
core outcome set
infant
infectous disease
neonatal sepsis
newborn
qualitative research
qualitative systematic review
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jun 2024
06 Jun 2024
Historique:
revised:
23
05
2024
received:
06
11
2023
accepted:
26
05
2024
medline:
6
6
2024
pubmed:
6
6
2024
entrez:
6
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
While a systematic review exists detailing neonatal sepsis outcomes from clinical trials, there remains an absence of a qualitative systematic review capturing the perspectives of key stakeholders. Our aim is to identify outcomes from qualitative research on any intervention to prevent or improve the outcomes of neonatal sepsis that are important to parents, other family members, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers as a part of the development of a core outcome set (COS) for neonatal sepsis. A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases. Publications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal sepsis outcomes were included. Drawing on the concepts of thematic synthesis, texts related to outcomes were coded and grouped. These outcomes were then mapped to the domain headings of an existing model. Out of 6777 records screened, six studies were included. Overall, 19 outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The most frequently reported outcomes were those in the domains related to parents, healthcare workers and individual organ systemas such as gastrointestinal system. The remaining outcomes were classified under the headings of general outcomes, miscellaneous outcomes, survival, and infection. The outcomes identified in this review are different from those reported in neonatal sepsis clinical trials, thus highlighting the importance of incorporating qualitative studies into COS development to encapsulate all relevant stakeholders' perspectives.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
While a systematic review exists detailing neonatal sepsis outcomes from clinical trials, there remains an absence of a qualitative systematic review capturing the perspectives of key stakeholders.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Our aim is to identify outcomes from qualitative research on any intervention to prevent or improve the outcomes of neonatal sepsis that are important to parents, other family members, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers as a part of the development of a core outcome set (COS) for neonatal sepsis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
METHODS
A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
METHODS
Publications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal sepsis outcomes were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
METHODS
Drawing on the concepts of thematic synthesis, texts related to outcomes were coded and grouped. These outcomes were then mapped to the domain headings of an existing model.
MAIN RESULTS
RESULTS
Out of 6777 records screened, six studies were included. Overall, 19 outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The most frequently reported outcomes were those in the domains related to parents, healthcare workers and individual organ systemas such as gastrointestinal system. The remaining outcomes were classified under the headings of general outcomes, miscellaneous outcomes, survival, and infection.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The outcomes identified in this review are different from those reported in neonatal sepsis clinical trials, thus highlighting the importance of incorporating qualitative studies into COS development to encapsulate all relevant stakeholders' perspectives.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Health Research Board
ID : CTN-2021-007
Pays : Ireland
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
WHO. Global report on the epidemiology and burden of sepsis: current evidence, identifying gaps and future directions. 2020.
Giannoni E, Agyeman PK, Stocker M, et al. Neonatal sepsis of early onset, and hospital‐acquired and community‐acquired late onset: a prospective population‐based cohort study. J Pediatr. 2018;201:106‐114.
Huncikova Z, Vatne A, Stensvold HJ, et al. Late‐onset sepsis in very preterm infants in Norway in 2009–2018: a population‐based study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2023;108:478‐484.
Perez K, Puia‐Dumitrescu M, Comstock BA, et al. Patterns of infections among extremely preterm infants. J Clin Med. 2023;12(7):2703.
Travers CP, Carlo WA, McDonald SA, et al. Racial/ethnic disparities among extremely preterm infants in the United States from 2002 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e206757.
Fleiss N, Coggins SA, Lewis AN, et al. Evaluation of the neonatal sequential organ failure assessment and mortality risk in preterm infants with late‐onset infection. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e2036518.
Köstlin‐Gille N, Härtel C, Haug C, et al. Epidemiology of early and late onset neonatal sepsis in very low birthweight infants: data from the German Neonatal Network. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2021;40(3):255‐259.
Russell NJ, Stöhr W, Plakkal N, et al. Patterns of antibiotic use, pathogens, and prediction of mortality in hospitalized neonates and young infants with sepsis: a global neonatal sepsis observational cohort study (NeoOBS). PLoS Med. 2023;20(6):e1004179.
Bakhuizen SE, de Haan TR, Teune MJ, et al. Meta‐analysis shows that infants who have suffered neonatal sepsis face an increased risk of mortality and severe complications. Acta Paediatr. 2014;103(12):1211‐1218.
Cai S, Thompson DK, Anderson PJ, Yang JYM. Short‐ and long‐term neurodevelopmental outcomes of very preterm infants with neonatal sepsis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Children. 2019;6(12):131. doi:10.3390/children6120131
Wynn JL. Defining neonatal sepsis. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2016;28(2):135‐140.
Alshaikh B, Yusuf K, Sauve R. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of very low birth weight infants with neonatal sepsis: systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Perinatol. 2013;33(7):558‐564.
Henry CJ, Semova G, Barnes E, et al. Neonatal sepsis: a systematic review of core outcomes from randomised clinical trials. Pediatr Res. 2022;91(4):735‐742.
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, et al. The COMET handbook: version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18:1‐50.
Gargon E, Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M. The COMET initiative database: progress and activities from 2011 to 2013. Trials. 2014;15:279.
Goodare H, Smith R. The rights of patients in research. BMJ. 1995;310(6990):1277‐1278.
Serrano‐Aguilar P, Trujillo‐Martin MM, Ramos‐Goni JM, Mahtani‐Chugani V, Perestelo‐Perez L, Posada‐de la Paz M. Patient involvement in health research: a contribution to a systematic review on the effectiveness of treatments for degenerative ataxias. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(6):920‐925.
Macefield RC, Boulind CE, Blazeby JM. Selecting and measuring optimal outcomes for randomised controlled trials in surgery. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2014;399(3):263‐272.
Kirkham JJ, Davis K, Altman DG, et al. Core outcome set‐STAndards for development: the COS‐STAD recommendations. PLoS Med. 2017;14(11):e1002447.
Keeley T, Williamson P, Callery P, et al. The use of qualitative methods to inform Delphi surveys in core outcome set development. Trials. 2016;17:230.
Webbe J, Brunton G, Ali S, et al. Parent, patient and clinician perceptions of outcomes during and following neonatal care: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2018;2(1):e000343. doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000343
Gorst SL, Young B, Williamson PR, Wilding JPH, Harman NL. Incorporating patients' perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2019;7(1):e000615. doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2018-000615
Ghai V, Subramanian V, Jan H, Thakar R, Doumouchtsis SK, Collaboration CI. A meta‐synthesis of qualitative literature on female chronic pelvic pain for the development of a core outcome set: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(5):1187‐1194.
Rada MP, Jones S, Falconi G, et al. A systematic review and meta‐synthesis of qualitative studies on pelvic organ prolapse for the development of core outcome sets. Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39(3):880‐889.
Coulman KD, MacKichan F, Blazeby JM, Owen‐Smith A. Patient experiences of outcomes of bariatric surgery: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Obes Rev. 2017;18(5):547‐559.
PROSPERO. CRD42022344485. 2024, Accessed 04 June 2024. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=344485
Taneri PE, Kirkham JJ, Molloy EJ, et al. Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal sepsis (NESCOS). PLoS One. 2023;18(12):e0295325.
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264‐269.
Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Moore G, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e001107.
Flemming K, Noyes J. Qualitative evidence synthesis: where are we at? Int J Qual Methods. 2021;20:1609406921993276.
Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, et al. Qualitative evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2019:525‐545.
Richardson E, McEwen A, Newton‐John T, Crook A, Jacobs C. Incorporating patient perspectives in the development of a core outcome set for reproductive genetic carrier screening: a sequential systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022;30:756‐765.
Pearson M, Moxham T, Ashton K. Effectiveness of search strategies for qualitative research about barriers and facilitators of program delivery. Eval Health Prof. 2011;34(3):297‐308.
Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, Booth A, Wong R. Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Inf Libr J. 2010;27(2):114‐122.
Evans D. Database searches for qualitative research. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90(3):290‐293.
Booth A, Harris J, Croot E, Springett J, Campbell F, Wilkins E. Towards a methodology for cluster searching to provide conceptual and contextual “richness” for systematic reviews of complex interventions: case study (CLUSTER). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:118.
Programme CAS. CASP for qualitative studies checklist 2018, Accessed 04 June 2024. https://casp‐uk.net/wp‐content/uploads/2018/03/CASP‐Qualitative‐Checklist‐2018_fillable_form.pdf
Long HA, French DP, Brooks JM. Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2020;1(1):31‐42.
Thomas J, Harden A, Newman M. Synthesis: Combining Results Systematically and Appropriately. Sage Publications; 2012.
Webbe JWH, Duffy JMN, Afonso E, et al. Core outcomes in neonatology: development of a core outcome set for neonatal research. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020;105(4):425‐431.
Urbanovská N, Pedro C, Sim‐Sim MMSF. Neonatal sepsis in mother‐child dyad of ethnic minority: a case study. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem. 2020;33:33.
De S, Tong A, Isaacs D, Craig JC. Parental perspectives on evaluation and management of fever in young infants: an interview study. Arch Dis Child. 2014;99(8):717‐723.
de Zoysa I, Bhandari N, Akhtari N, Bhan MK. Careseeking for illness in young infants in an urban slum in India. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(12):2101‐2111.
Rubarth LB. The lived experience of nurses caring for newborns with sepsis. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2003;32(3):348‐356.
Murthy S, Guddattu V, Lewis L, Nair NS, Haisma H, Bailey A. Stressors and support system among parents of neonates hospitalised with systemic infections: qualitative study in South India. Arch Dis Child. 2021;106(1):20‐29.
Applegate JA, Ahmed S, Harrison M, et al. Provider performance and facility readiness for managing infections in young infants in primary care facilities in rural Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0229988.
Aengenheyster S, Cuhls K, Gerhold L, Heiskanen‐Schüttler M, Huck J, Muszynska M. Real‐time Delphi in practice—a comparative analysis of existing software‐based tools. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2017;118:15‐27.
Davis K, Gorst SL, Harman N, et al. Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: an updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0190695.
COMET Database. Development of a core outcome set for neonatal sepsis, Accessed 04 June 2024. https://www.cometinitiative.org/Studies/Details/2118
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71