Martina Benvenuti, Elisa Cavallini, Ginevra Battello, Fabrizio Zullo, Lorenza Driul, Antonella Cromi, Paolo Mannella, Rossella E Nappi, Giovanni Scambia, Pasquale De Franciscis, Gaetano Riemma
{"title":"孕妇和医院员工对脐带血库的认识、态度和做法：系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Martina Benvenuti, Elisa Cavallini, Ginevra Battello, Fabrizio Zullo, Lorenza Driul, Antonella Cromi, Paolo Mannella, Rossella E Nappi, Giovanni Scambia, Pasquale De Franciscis, Gaetano Riemma","doi":"10.3390/healthcare12212131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>The aim of this study is to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pregnant women and hospital staff regarding umbilical cord blood (UCB) donation and storage to understand its limitations in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Scopus, LILACS, EMBASE, Scielo.br, and PROSPERO were searched from inception to 30 November 2023 with no geographic or language restrictions. The study eligibility criteria included cross-sectional studies that interviewed pregnant women and/or hospital staff about their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding private or public storage. A random-effects restricted maximum-likelihood model with Freeman-Tukey Double arcsine transformation meta-analysis was carried out to calculate the pooled estimates. MOOSE guidelines were followed. STATA 14.1 was used for statistical analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I tool were used for quality and risk of bias assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 19 studies providing data for 19,904 pregnant women and 1245 hospital staff members were included. Pooled pregnant women awareness was 61% ((95% CI 0.60 to 0.62), I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 11.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.950)), and 61% for hospital staff (95% CI 0.58 to 0.64), I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.00 (<i>p</i> = 0.310)). In total, 57% ((95% CI 0.56 to 0.58), I<sup>2</sup> = 0, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.00 (<i>p</i> = 0.320)) of pregnant women had a positive attitude about UCB, while 34% ((95% CI 0.32 to 0.36), I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.00 (<i>p</i> = 0.310)) were in favor of donating UCB for research and 65% ((95% CI 0.63 to 0.66), I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.350)) were planning UCB storage. A significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001) preference for public relative to private banking (51% ([95% CI 0.49 to 0.54], I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.310)) vs. 12% ([95% CI 0.10 to 0.13], I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.300))) was noted for pregnant women. The same was retrievable for professionals (84% ([95% CI 0.79 to 0.88], I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 2.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.110)) vs. 6% ([95% CI 0.03 to 0.09], I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 1.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.070); <i>p</i> < 0.001)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite these efforts, lack of knowledge and positive attitudes about UCB banking remain, emphasizing the need for increasing educational programs on the subject.</p>","PeriodicalId":12977,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare","volume":"12 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11544813/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Pregnant Women and Hospital Staff Regarding Umbilical Cord Blood Banking: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Martina Benvenuti, Elisa Cavallini, Ginevra Battello, Fabrizio Zullo, Lorenza Driul, Antonella Cromi, Paolo Mannella, Rossella E Nappi, Giovanni Scambia, Pasquale De Franciscis, Gaetano Riemma\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/healthcare12212131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>The aim of this study is to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pregnant women and hospital staff regarding umbilical cord blood (UCB) donation and storage to understand its limitations in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Scopus, LILACS, EMBASE, Scielo.br, and PROSPERO were searched from inception to 30 November 2023 with no geographic or language restrictions. The study eligibility criteria included cross-sectional studies that interviewed pregnant women and/or hospital staff about their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding private or public storage. A random-effects restricted maximum-likelihood model with Freeman-Tukey Double arcsine transformation meta-analysis was carried out to calculate the pooled estimates. MOOSE guidelines were followed. STATA 14.1 was used for statistical analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I tool were used for quality and risk of bias assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 19 studies providing data for 19,904 pregnant women and 1245 hospital staff members were included. Pooled pregnant women awareness was 61% ((95% CI 0.60 to 0.62), I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 11.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.950)), and 61% for hospital staff (95% CI 0.58 to 0.64), I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.00 (<i>p</i> = 0.310)). In total, 57% ((95% CI 0.56 to 0.58), I<sup>2</sup> = 0, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.00 (<i>p</i> = 0.320)) of pregnant women had a positive attitude about UCB, while 34% ((95% CI 0.32 to 0.36), I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.00 (<i>p</i> = 0.310)) were in favor of donating UCB for research and 65% ((95% CI 0.63 to 0.66), I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.350)) were planning UCB storage. A significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001) preference for public relative to private banking (51% ([95% CI 0.49 to 0.54], I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.310)) vs. 12% ([95% CI 0.10 to 0.13], I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 4.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.300))) was noted for pregnant women. The same was retrievable for professionals (84% ([95% CI 0.79 to 0.88], I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 2.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.110)) vs. 6% ([95% CI 0.03 to 0.09], I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, τ<sup>2</sup> = 0.00, Q = 1.0 (<i>p</i> = 0.070); <i>p</i> < 0.001)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite these efforts, lack of knowledge and positive attitudes about UCB banking remain, emphasizing the need for increasing educational programs on the subject.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Healthcare\",\"volume\":\"12 21\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11544813/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12212131\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12212131","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Pregnant Women and Hospital Staff Regarding Umbilical Cord Blood Banking: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Background/objectives: The aim of this study is to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pregnant women and hospital staff regarding umbilical cord blood (UCB) donation and storage to understand its limitations in clinical practice.
Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, LILACS, EMBASE, Scielo.br, and PROSPERO were searched from inception to 30 November 2023 with no geographic or language restrictions. The study eligibility criteria included cross-sectional studies that interviewed pregnant women and/or hospital staff about their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding private or public storage. A random-effects restricted maximum-likelihood model with Freeman-Tukey Double arcsine transformation meta-analysis was carried out to calculate the pooled estimates. MOOSE guidelines were followed. STATA 14.1 was used for statistical analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I tool were used for quality and risk of bias assessments.
Results: In total, 19 studies providing data for 19,904 pregnant women and 1245 hospital staff members were included. Pooled pregnant women awareness was 61% ((95% CI 0.60 to 0.62), I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00, Q = 11.0 (p = 0.950)), and 61% for hospital staff (95% CI 0.58 to 0.64), I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00, Q = 4.00 (p = 0.310)). In total, 57% ((95% CI 0.56 to 0.58), I2 = 0, τ2 = 0.00, Q = 4.00 (p = 0.320)) of pregnant women had a positive attitude about UCB, while 34% ((95% CI 0.32 to 0.36), I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00, Q = 4.00 (p = 0.310)) were in favor of donating UCB for research and 65% ((95% CI 0.63 to 0.66), I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00, Q = 4.0 (p = 0.350)) were planning UCB storage. A significant (p < 0.001) preference for public relative to private banking (51% ([95% CI 0.49 to 0.54], I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00, Q = 4.0 (p = 0.310)) vs. 12% ([95% CI 0.10 to 0.13], I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00, Q = 4.0 (p = 0.300))) was noted for pregnant women. The same was retrievable for professionals (84% ([95% CI 0.79 to 0.88], I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00, Q = 2.0 (p = 0.110)) vs. 6% ([95% CI 0.03 to 0.09], I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0.00, Q = 1.0 (p = 0.070); p < 0.001)).
Conclusions: Despite these efforts, lack of knowledge and positive attitudes about UCB banking remain, emphasizing the need for increasing educational programs on the subject.
期刊介绍：
Healthcare (ISSN 2227-9032) is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal (free for readers), which publishes original theoretical and empirical work in the interdisciplinary area of all aspects of medicine and health care research. Healthcare publishes Original Research Articles, Reviews, Case Reports, Research Notes and Short Communications. We encourage researchers to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. For theoretical papers, full details of proofs must be provided so that the results can be checked; for experimental papers, full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Additionally, electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculations, experimental procedure, etc., can be deposited along with the publication as “Supplementary Material”.
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
