RESUMEN
AIM: There is lack of evidence and research understanding among women's lived experiences following first acute coronary syndrome, thus their recovery process remains poorly understood. To date research has largely focused on men's experience of acute coronary syndrome while this area of health care and recovery has considerable impact on women's health and quality of life. Our aim was to review the literature exploring lived experience of women following first acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: Integrative review of the literature. DATA SOURCE: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from 2008-2018 for articles published in English. REVIEW METHOD: Of 1675 publications identified, 18 qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies met our inclusion criteria. Quality of included studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tools. Findings were integrated using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Experiencing acute coronary syndrome was reported to have significant impacts on women's lives. The most common issues reported were physical limitations, fear, and uncertainties about the future, sexual dissatisfaction, and social isolation. Women also reported to have higher short- and long-term mortality rate, stroke, recurrent, and hospital readmissions compared with men. CONCLUSION: This review identified current knowledge and gaps about lived experience of women following first acute coronary syndrome. It is anticipated that the information gained from this literature review will support new research aimed at improving the care women receive following acute coronary syndrome and therefore enhance their recovery and quality of life. IMPACT: This review contributes to the current body of knowledge by addressing women's physical, psychosocial, and sexual state following acute coronary syndrome. Improvement in women's quality of life after acute coronary syndrome necessitates further research which ultimately results in better management and treatment of women and their recovery following first acute coronary syndrome.
Asunto(s)
Síndrome Coronario Agudo , Calidad de Vida , Atención a la Salud , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Investigación Cualitativa , Salud de la MujerRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Antenatal care is one of the key preventive health services used around the world. In most Western countries, antenatal care traditionally involves a schedule of one-to-one visits with a care provider. A different way of providing antenatal care involves use of a group model. OBJECTIVES: 1. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on psychosocial, physiological, labour and birth outcomes for women and their babies.2. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), contacted experts in the field and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing group antenatal care with conventional antenatal care were included. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, and one has been included. Cross-over trials were not eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data; all review authors checked data for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies (2350 women). The overall risk of bias for the included studies was assessed as acceptable in two studies and good in two studies. No statistically significant differences were observed between women who received group antenatal care and those given standard individual antenatal care for the primary outcome of preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.00; three trials; N = 1888). The proportion of low-birthweight (less than 2500 g) babies was similar between groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.23; three trials; N = 1935). No group differences were noted for the primary outcomes small-for-gestational age (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24; two trials; N = 1473) and perinatal mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; three trials; N = 1943).Satisfaction was rated as high among women who were allocated to group antenatal care, but this outcome was measured in only one trial. In this trial, mean satisfaction with care in the group given antenatal care was almost five times greater than that reported by those allocated to standard care (mean difference 4.90, 95% CI 3.10 to 6.70; one study; N = 993). No differences in neonatal intensive care admission, initiation of breastfeeding or spontaneous vaginal birth were observed between groups. Several outcomes related to stress and depression were reported in one trial. No differences between groups were observed for any of these outcomes.No data were available on the effects of group antenatal care on care provider satisfaction.We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess evidence for seven prespecified outcomes; results ranged from low quality (perinatal mortality) to moderate quality (preterm birth, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding initiation) to high quality (satisfaction with antenatal care, spontaneous vaginal birth). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women and is associated with no adverse outcomes for them or for their babies. No differences in the rate of preterm birth were reported when women received group antenatal care. This review is limited because of the small numbers of studies and women, and because one study contributed 42% of the women. Most of the analyses are based on a single study. Additional research is required to determine whether group antenatal care is associated with significant benefit in terms of preterm birth or birthweight.
Asunto(s)
Atención Prenatal/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Recién Nacido de Bajo Peso , Recién Nacido , Grupo Paritario , Embarazo , Nacimiento Prematuro/epidemiología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A pilot study was undertaken between 2006 and 2008 to explore the feasibility of implementing the CenteringPregnancy model of group antenatal care in Australia. The study was undertaken at two hospital antenatal clinics and two community healthcare centres in southern Sydney. This paper reports on one arm of the pilot study, known as the 'Midwives' Study', which aimed to explore the experiences of the midwives as they moved from providing traditional one-to-one antenatal care to facilitating group antenatal care. METHODS: The Australian pilot study used Action Research. Eight midwives, the group facilitators, and three researchers formed the Action Research group. A qualitative descriptive approach was undertaken to describe the experiences of the midwives. Data were collected using focus groups, surveys and checklists and analysed using thematic content analysis. FINDINGS: The midwives' initial fears and misgivings about undertaking the new role of group antenatal care gave way to a growing confidence in their abilities and group facilitation skills. They appreciated: the benefits of the CenteringPregnancy model for pregnant women; new opportunities to develop positive relationships with women and their colleagues; and the structured support and education throughout all stages of the Action Research process. CONCLUSION: The midwives were enthusiastic about their experiences of becoming CenteringPregnancy facilitators and described the benefits of this model of care compared to traditional one-to-one antenatal care. Support and education of the midwives through structured Action Research cycles enhanced the effective implementation of this new model.
Asunto(s)
Partería/métodos , Enfermeras Obstetrices/psicología , Atención Prenatal/métodos , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Australia , Femenino , Grupos Focales , Procesos de Grupo , Humanos , Entrevistas como Asunto , Relaciones Enfermero-Paciente , Proyectos Piloto , Embarazo , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Investigación Cualitativa , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Antenatal care is one of the key preventive health services used around the world. In most Western countries, antenatal care traditionally involves a schedule of one-to-one visits with a care provider. A different way of providing antenatal care is through a group model. OBJECTIVES: The first objective was to compare the effects of group antenatal care versus one-to-one care on outcomes for women and their babies. The primary outcomes were preterm birth (birth occurring before 37 completed gestational weeks), low birthweight (less than 2500 g), small-for-gestational age (less than the tenth percentile for gestation and gender) and perinatal mortality. Secondary outcomes included psychological measures and satisfaction as well as labour and birth and postnatal outcomes.The second objective was to compare the effects of group care versus one-to-one care on care provider satisfaction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (9 March 2012), contacted experts in the field and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing group antenatal care with conventional antenatal care were included. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and evaluated trial quality. Two authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies (1369 women). There were no statistically significant differences between women who received group antenatal care compared with standard one-to-one care in relation to the primary outcomes. In particular, there was no difference in the rate of preterm birth rate between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.60; two trials; N = 1315) and the proportion of low birthweight (less than 2500 g) babies was similar between the groups (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.46; two trials; N = 1315).Satisfaction was rated highly in women who were allocated to group antenatal care but only measured in one trial. In this trial, the mean satisfaction with care in group antenatal care was almost five times higher compared with those allocated to standard care (N = 993). A number of outcomes related to stress, distress and depression were reported in one trial. There were no differences between the groups in any of these outcomes.There were no data available on the effects of group antenatal care on care provider satisfaction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women with no adverse outcomes for themselves or their babies. This review is limited owing to the small number of studies/women and the majority of the analyses are based on a single study. More research is required to determine if group antenatal care is associated with significant benefits.
Asunto(s)
Atención Prenatal/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Recién Nacido de Bajo Peso , Recién Nacido , Grupo Paritario , Embarazo , Nacimiento Prematuro/epidemiología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: to describe the experiences of women who were participants in the Australian CenteringPregnancy Pilot Study. CenteringPregnancy is an innovative model of care where antenatal care is provided in a group environment. The aim of the pilot study was to determine whether it would be feasible to implement this model of care in Australia. DESIGN: a descriptive study was conducted. Data included clinical information from hospital records, and antenatal and postnatal questionnaires. SETTING: two metropolitan hospitals in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 35 women were recruited to the study and 33 ultimately received all their antenatal care (eight sessions) through five[CH(1)] CenteringPregnancy groups. FINDINGS: difficulties with recruitment within a short study timeline resulted in only 35 (20%) of 171 women who were offered group antenatal care choosing to participate. Most women chose this form of antenatal care in order to build friendships and support networks. Attendance rates were high and women appreciated the opportunity and time to build supportive relationships through sharing knowledge, ideas and experiences with other women and with midwives facilitating the groups. The opportunity for partners to attend was identified as important. Clinical outcomes for women were in keeping with those for women receiving standard care; however, the numbers were small. CONCLUSION: the high satisfaction of the women suggests that CenteringPregnancy is an appropriate model of care for many women in Australian settings, particularly if recruitment strategies are addressed and women's partners can participate. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: CenteringPregnancy group antenatal care assists women with the development of social support networks and is an acceptable way in which to provide antenatal care in an Australian setting. Recruitment strategies should include ensuring that practitioners are confident in explaining the advantages of group antenatal care to women in early pregnancy. Further research needs to be conducted to implement this model of care more widely.