Georgina Constantinou , Susan Ayers , Eleanor J. Mitchell , Kate F. Walker , Soo Downe , Ann-Marie Jones , Sarah Moore , Jane P. Daniels , GBS3 Collaborative Group
{"title":"实施 B 群链球菌检测的可接受性：GBS3 试验中妇女和医疗专业人员的观点：定性研究","authors":"Georgina Constantinou , Susan Ayers , Eleanor J. Mitchell , Kate F. Walker , Soo Downe , Ann-Marie Jones , Sarah Moore , Jane P. Daniels , GBS3 Collaborative Group","doi":"10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101832","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To determine the acceptability of different methods of routine testing for group B Streptococcus (GBS) colonisation to pregnant women and health care professionals (HCPs), and to examine barriers and facilitators to their implementation.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Qualitative study, embedded in a cluster randomised trial</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Four NHS maternity units participating in the GBS3 Trial: two conducting routine antenatal enriched culture medium (ECM) testing; and two using routine rapid intrapartum testing.</div><div><strong>Sample</strong></div><div>39 women and 25 HCPs purposively sampled to ensure representation of women with various birthing experiences and different professions.</div><div><strong>Methods</strong></div><div>Women were interviewed approximately 12 weeks postpartum by telephone or online video call, using a semi-structured topic guide. HCPs were interviewed during the testing period of the trial. Interviews were transcribed for thematic analysis and summarised using the framework method.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Four categories of interest emerged: (1) views of routine testing; (2) acceptability of the testing procedure; (3) preferences on the types of test; (4) improving the testing procedure. Routine GBS testing was well received by both women and HCPs. Most participants found the procedure acceptable and were willing to receive the offer of testing in the future. Preferences for different testing methods varied, with participants emphasising the importance of evidence and informed choice.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Routine GBS testing is acceptable to most women and HCPs. Areas for consideration and the practicalities of implementing testing in maternity services are highlighted.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48868,"journal":{"name":"Women and Birth","volume":"37 6","pages":"Article 101832"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The acceptability of implementation of group B Streptococcus testing: Perspectives from women and health professionals in the GBS3 trial: A qualitative study\",\"authors\":\"Georgina Constantinou , Susan Ayers , Eleanor J. Mitchell , Kate F. Walker , Soo Downe , Ann-Marie Jones , Sarah Moore , Jane P. Daniels , GBS3 Collaborative Group\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101832\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To determine the acceptability of different methods of routine testing for group B Streptococcus (GBS) colonisation to pregnant women and health care professionals (HCPs), and to examine barriers and facilitators to their implementation.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Qualitative study, embedded in a cluster randomised trial</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Four NHS maternity units participating in the GBS3 Trial: two conducting routine antenatal enriched culture medium (ECM) testing; and two using routine rapid intrapartum testing.</div><div><strong>Sample</strong></div><div>39 women and 25 HCPs purposively sampled to ensure representation of women with various birthing experiences and different professions.</div><div><strong>Methods</strong></div><div>Women were interviewed approximately 12 weeks postpartum by telephone or online video call, using a semi-structured topic guide. HCPs were interviewed during the testing period of the trial. Interviews were transcribed for thematic analysis and summarised using the framework method.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Four categories of interest emerged: (1) views of routine testing; (2) acceptability of the testing procedure; (3) preferences on the types of test; (4) improving the testing procedure. Routine GBS testing was well received by both women and HCPs. Most participants found the procedure acceptable and were willing to receive the offer of testing in the future. Preferences for different testing methods varied, with participants emphasising the importance of evidence and informed choice.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Routine GBS testing is acceptable to most women and HCPs. Areas for consideration and the practicalities of implementing testing in maternity services are highlighted.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Women and Birth\",\"volume\":\"37 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 101832\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Women and Birth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871519224002920\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women and Birth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871519224002920","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
The acceptability of implementation of group B Streptococcus testing: Perspectives from women and health professionals in the GBS3 trial: A qualitative study
Objective
To determine the acceptability of different methods of routine testing for group B Streptococcus (GBS) colonisation to pregnant women and health care professionals (HCPs), and to examine barriers and facilitators to their implementation.
Design
Qualitative study, embedded in a cluster randomised trial
Setting
Four NHS maternity units participating in the GBS3 Trial: two conducting routine antenatal enriched culture medium (ECM) testing; and two using routine rapid intrapartum testing.
Sample
39 women and 25 HCPs purposively sampled to ensure representation of women with various birthing experiences and different professions.
Methods
Women were interviewed approximately 12 weeks postpartum by telephone or online video call, using a semi-structured topic guide. HCPs were interviewed during the testing period of the trial. Interviews were transcribed for thematic analysis and summarised using the framework method.
Results
Four categories of interest emerged: (1) views of routine testing; (2) acceptability of the testing procedure; (3) preferences on the types of test; (4) improving the testing procedure. Routine GBS testing was well received by both women and HCPs. Most participants found the procedure acceptable and were willing to receive the offer of testing in the future. Preferences for different testing methods varied, with participants emphasising the importance of evidence and informed choice.
Conclusions
Routine GBS testing is acceptable to most women and HCPs. Areas for consideration and the practicalities of implementing testing in maternity services are highlighted.
期刊介绍：
Women and Birth is the official journal of the Australian College of Midwives (ACM). It is a midwifery journal that publishes on all matters that affect women and birth, from pre-conceptual counselling, through pregnancy, birth, and the first six weeks postnatal. All papers accepted will draw from and contribute to the relevant contemporary research, policy and/or theoretical literature. We seek research papers, quality assurances papers (with ethical approval) discussion papers, clinical practice papers, case studies and original literature reviews.
Our women-centred focus is inclusive of the family, fetus and newborn, both well and sick, and covers both healthy and complex pregnancies and births. The journal seeks papers that take a woman-centred focus on maternity services, epidemiology, primary health care, reproductive psycho/physiology, midwifery practice, theory, research, education, management and leadership. We also seek relevant papers on maternal mental health and neonatal well-being, natural and complementary therapies, local, national and international policy, management, politics, economics and societal and cultural issues as they affect childbearing women and their families. Topics may include, where appropriate, neonatal care, child and family health, women’s health, related to pregnancy, birth and the postpartum, including lactation. Interprofessional papers relevant to midwifery are welcome. Articles are double blind peer-reviewed, primarily by experts in the field of the submitted work.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
