Françoise Vendittelli, Lucie Adalid, Violaine Peyronnet, Sophie Guillaume, Nathalie Piquée, Aurore Viard-Cretat, Catherine Crenn-Hébert, Olivier Rivière, Candy Guiguet-Auclair, Study Group
{"title":"Consensus on the Structure and Content of Birth Plans: A Modified Delphi Study","authors":"Françoise Vendittelli, Lucie Adalid, Violaine Peyronnet, Sophie Guillaume, Nathalie Piquée, Aurore Viard-Cretat, Catherine Crenn-Hébert, Olivier Rivière, Candy Guiguet-Auclair, Study Group","doi":"10.1111/hex.70124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Few pregnant women in France wrote birth plans as in many other countries. The literature stresses the heterogeneity of birth plan content, which limits the utility of assessing the effects of birth plans on women's experience of childbirth. This study aimed to obtain a French national consensus on the structure and content of birth plans.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A multidisciplinary steering committee was established. An electronic modified Delphi study was conducted to develop a structure and content for birth plans between November 2022 and June 2023. During three Delphi consensus rounds, panellists, including perinatal health care professionals and user representatives, were asked to rate individually and independently each proposed section and subsection formulation of the birth plan for its appropriateness. An external board assessed the understandability of the final birth plan's preamble and content.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The steering committee proposed 103 formulations corresponding to items to be covered in a birth plan, categorized into 8 sections and 30 subsections, for evaluation in the Delphi rounds. The first round was completed by 42 panellists (mainly midwives), the second by 39, and the third by 36. Finally, the steering committee approved the final components of the structured birth plan in 8 sections and 19 subsections, after its reviewing by the 21 members of the external board.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>A French national Delphi process, after three rounds and validation by an external board, made it possible to reach a consensus on the structure and content of a birth plan in 8 sections and 19 subsections.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>User representatives were included as experts in the Delphi rounds, and in the external board to approve the final version of the structured birth plan.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70124","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70124","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Few pregnant women in France wrote birth plans as in many other countries. The literature stresses the heterogeneity of birth plan content, which limits the utility of assessing the effects of birth plans on women's experience of childbirth. This study aimed to obtain a French national consensus on the structure and content of birth plans.
Methods
A multidisciplinary steering committee was established. An electronic modified Delphi study was conducted to develop a structure and content for birth plans between November 2022 and June 2023. During three Delphi consensus rounds, panellists, including perinatal health care professionals and user representatives, were asked to rate individually and independently each proposed section and subsection formulation of the birth plan for its appropriateness. An external board assessed the understandability of the final birth plan's preamble and content.
Results
The steering committee proposed 103 formulations corresponding to items to be covered in a birth plan, categorized into 8 sections and 30 subsections, for evaluation in the Delphi rounds. The first round was completed by 42 panellists (mainly midwives), the second by 39, and the third by 36. Finally, the steering committee approved the final components of the structured birth plan in 8 sections and 19 subsections, after its reviewing by the 21 members of the external board.
Conclusion
A French national Delphi process, after three rounds and validation by an external board, made it possible to reach a consensus on the structure and content of a birth plan in 8 sections and 19 subsections.
Patient or Public Contribution
User representatives were included as experts in the Delphi rounds, and in the external board to approve the final version of the structured birth plan.
期刊介绍:
Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including:
• Person-centred care and quality improvement
• Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management
• Public perceptions of health services
• Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting
• Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation
• Empowerment and consumerism
• Patients'' role in safety and quality
• Patient and public role in health services research
• Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy
Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.