Acceptability and feasibility of maternal screening for Group B Streptococcus: a rapid review.

Georgina Constantinou, Rebecca Webb, Susan Ayers, Eleanor J Mitchell, Jane Daniels
{"title":"Acceptability and feasibility of maternal screening for Group B Streptococcus: a rapid review.","authors":"Georgina Constantinou, Rebecca Webb, Susan Ayers, Eleanor J Mitchell, Jane Daniels","doi":"10.1101/2024.06.28.24309381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The risks and benefits of maternal screening for GBS during pregnancy or the intrapartum period are widely debated, since screen positive results trigger prophylactic antibiotic use. There is little known about womens and health professionals views regarding GBS screening. Objectives: To conduct a rapid review to synthesise evidence on women and health professionals: (1) knowledge and awareness of; (2) preferences for; and (3) acceptability of GBS screening programmes, and (4) how feasible they are to implement.\nMethod: Literature searches were conducted using online databases from their inception to 2023. Papers were included if they reported primary research from the perspectives of health professionals and women, about their knowledge and awareness, preferences, acceptability and feasibility of different types of GBS screening programmes. Data were assessed for confidence using GRADE-CERQual and analysed using a convergent synthesis approach. Findings: 42 papers were eligible for inclusion. A total of 16,306 women and professionals were included. Women generally did not have extensive knowledge about GBS. Health professionals had a higher level of knowledge than women. Women were generally (but not universally) positive about GBS testing procedures. Some women were concerned about the impact on their place of birth. Discussion and Conclusion: Where GBS screening programmes are available, parents must be provided with high quality information about them. Health professionals and service managers need to weigh up the benefits and risks of screening for GBS with local feasibility and treatment options, and with womens individual values and birth plans.","PeriodicalId":501409,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Obstetrics and Gynecology","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Obstetrics and Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.28.24309381","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The risks and benefits of maternal screening for GBS during pregnancy or the intrapartum period are widely debated, since screen positive results trigger prophylactic antibiotic use. There is little known about womens and health professionals views regarding GBS screening. Objectives: To conduct a rapid review to synthesise evidence on women and health professionals: (1) knowledge and awareness of; (2) preferences for; and (3) acceptability of GBS screening programmes, and (4) how feasible they are to implement. Method: Literature searches were conducted using online databases from their inception to 2023. Papers were included if they reported primary research from the perspectives of health professionals and women, about their knowledge and awareness, preferences, acceptability and feasibility of different types of GBS screening programmes. Data were assessed for confidence using GRADE-CERQual and analysed using a convergent synthesis approach. Findings: 42 papers were eligible for inclusion. A total of 16,306 women and professionals were included. Women generally did not have extensive knowledge about GBS. Health professionals had a higher level of knowledge than women. Women were generally (but not universally) positive about GBS testing procedures. Some women were concerned about the impact on their place of birth. Discussion and Conclusion: Where GBS screening programmes are available, parents must be provided with high quality information about them. Health professionals and service managers need to weigh up the benefits and risks of screening for GBS with local feasibility and treatment options, and with womens individual values and birth plans.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
孕产妇 B 群链球菌筛查的可接受性和可行性:快速审查。
背景:由于筛查结果呈阳性会导致预防性抗生素的使用,因此在孕期或产前对孕产妇进行 GBS 筛查的风险和益处引起了广泛争议。关于妇女和医疗专业人员对 GBS 筛查的看法却知之甚少。研究目的进行快速综述,综合妇女和医疗专业人员在以下方面的证据:(1) 对 GBS 筛查项目的了解和认识;(2) 偏好;(3) 可接受性;(4) 实施的可行性:使用在线数据库对从开始到 2023 年的文献进行检索。如果论文从医疗专业人员和妇女的角度出发,报告了他们对不同类型的 GBS 筛查项目的了解和认识、偏好、接受度和可行性等方面的初步研究,则被纳入其中。采用 GRADE-CERQual 对数据进行置信度评估,并采用聚合综合法对数据进行分析。研究结果42 篇论文符合纳入条件。共纳入了 16,306 名妇女和专业人员。妇女普遍对 GBS 没有广泛的了解。医疗专业人员的知识水平高于女性。妇女对 GBS 检测程序普遍持肯定态度(但并不普遍)。一些妇女担心会对其出生地产生影响。讨论与结论:在有 GBS 筛查计划的地方,必须向父母提供高质量的相关信息。卫生专业人员和服务管理人员需要根据当地的可行性和治疗方案,以及产妇的个人价值观和分娩计划来权衡 GBS 筛查的益处和风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Contraceptive Outcomes of the Natural Cycles Birth Control App: A Study of Canadian Women Uptake of Intrauterine Contraception after Medical Management of First Trimester Incomplete Abortion: A Cross-sectional study in central Uganda Impact and factors affecting unplanned out-of-hospital birth on newborns at University Hospital compared to in-hospital born newborns Effectiveness of the modified WHO labour care guide to detect prolonged and obstructed labour among women admitted at publicly funded facilities in rural Mbarara district, Southwestern Uganda: an ambispective cohort study ACVR2A Facilitates Trophoblast Cell Invasion through TCF7/c-JUN Pathway in Pre-eclampsia Progression
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1