生育计划结构与内容的共识:修正德尔菲研究。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Expectations Pub Date : 2024-12-18 DOI:10.1111/hex.70124
Françoise Vendittelli, Lucie Adalid, Violaine Peyronnet, Sophie Guillaume, Nathalie Piquée, Aurore Viard-Cretat, Catherine Crenn-Hébert, Olivier Rivière, Candy Guiguet-Auclair, Study Group
{"title":"生育计划结构与内容的共识:修正德尔菲研究。","authors":"Françoise Vendittelli,&nbsp;Lucie Adalid,&nbsp;Violaine Peyronnet,&nbsp;Sophie Guillaume,&nbsp;Nathalie Piquée,&nbsp;Aurore Viard-Cretat,&nbsp;Catherine Crenn-Hébert,&nbsp;Olivier Rivière,&nbsp;Candy Guiguet-Auclair,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Consensus on the Structure and Content of Birth Plans: A Modified Delphi Study\",\"authors\":\"Françoise Vendittelli,&nbsp;Lucie Adalid,&nbsp;Violaine Peyronnet,&nbsp;Sophie Guillaume,&nbsp;Nathalie Piquée,&nbsp;Aurore Viard-Cretat,&nbsp;Catherine Crenn-Hébert,&nbsp;Olivier Rivière,&nbsp;Candy Guiguet-Auclair,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

背景:和许多其他国家一样,法国很少有孕妇写生育计划。文献强调生育计划内容的异质性,这限制了评估生育计划对妇女分娩经历影响的效用。本研究旨在获得法国全国对生育计划的结构和内容的共识。方法:成立多学科指导委员会。通过电子修正德尔福研究,为2022年11月至2023年6月期间的生育计划制定结构和内容。在三轮德尔菲协商一致的过程中,包括围产期保健专业人员和用户代表在内的小组成员被要求单独和独立地评价每个拟议的生育计划的分段和分节制定的适当性。一个外部委员会评估了最终生育计划的序言和内容的可理解性。结果:指导委员会提出了103个与生育计划所涵盖的项目相对应的配方,分为8个部分和30个小节,供德尔菲轮评估。第一轮由42名小组成员(主要是助产士)完成,第二轮由39名小组成员完成,第三轮由36名小组成员完成。最后,指导委员会在经过外部委员会21名成员的审查后,批准了结构化生育计划的最终组成部分,包括8个科和19个小科。结论:法国国家德尔菲程序,经过三轮和外部委员会的验证,对生育计划的8个科19个亚科的结构和内容达成了共识。患者或公众贡献:用户代表作为专家被纳入德尔菲轮,并在外部委员会批准结构化生育计划的最终版本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Consensus on the Structure and Content of Birth Plans: A Modified Delphi Study

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Erratum to “What I Wish I Had Known: Examining Parent Accounts of Managing the Health of Their Child With Intellectual Disability” Bridging the Gap: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Impact of the Involvement of Researchers With Lived Experience on a Multisite Randomised Control Trial in the National Probation Service in England and Wales The Forgotten Voices: Enabling Children and Young People With Intellectual Disability to Express Their Views on Their Inpatient Hospital Experience Setting Primary Health and Social Care Priorities Using a Deliberative Democratic Participatory Approach The World Café as a Tool for Evaluating the Level of Acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 Screening in School Settings, Puglia Region, Italy, 2023
×
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