验证PreCHAT:改善生殖、孕产妇和儿童健康的数字孕前健康风险评估工具。

Cynthia Montanaro, Liz Robson, Leslie Binnington, Nicole Winters, Hilary K Brown
{"title":"验证PreCHAT:改善生殖、孕产妇和儿童健康的数字孕前健康风险评估工具。","authors":"Cynthia Montanaro,&nbsp;Liz Robson,&nbsp;Leslie Binnington,&nbsp;Nicole Winters,&nbsp;Hilary K Brown","doi":"10.1177/08445621221112668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study background: </strong>Despite the growing understanding of preconception care, numerous barriers to its delivery still exist, including a lack of evidence-based, accessible screening tools.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To validate a new digital Preconception Health Assessment Tool (PreCHAT) against the current best practice, physician-delivered tool in Ontario, Canada, and explore how PreCHAT's design impacts its risk identification abilities relative to the comparison tool.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A criterion validation study was conducted with 53 female participants aged 18-44 years. Participants completed both tools in a controlled setting. PreCHAT was completed on a tablet individually by participants, while the comparison tool was administered by a physician. Three physicians administered the comparison tool. Measures of strength of agreement between PreCHAT and the comparison tool were calculated using percent agreement, Cohen's Kappa, and prevalence-adjusted and biased-adjusted kappa (PABAK).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PreCHAT identified 135 individual risk factors, while the comparison tool identified 102. Both tools shared the same 14 domains of preconception care and 88 risk factors; of the 88 risk factors, PreCHAT identified an average of 3.42 (p < 0.0001) more risks per participant than the comparison tool. PABAK scores indicated almost perfect agreement between PreCHAT and the comparison tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that PreCHAT is valid against the current best practice tool and is broader in its risk identification among individuals of reproductive age. PreCHAT's patient-facing, digital, EMR-integrated design may offer unique benefits to providers and patients. PreCHAT offers providers an innovative approach to deliver preconception care and may positively impact reproductive, maternal, and child health.</p>","PeriodicalId":46661,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Nursing Research","volume":"55 2","pages":"206-215"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validating PreCHAT: A Digital Preconception Health Risk Assessment Tool to Improve Reproductive, Maternal and Child Health.\",\"authors\":\"Cynthia Montanaro,&nbsp;Liz Robson,&nbsp;Leslie Binnington,&nbsp;Nicole Winters,&nbsp;Hilary K Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08445621221112668\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study background: </strong>Despite the growing understanding of preconception care, numerous barriers to its delivery still exist, including a lack of evidence-based, accessible screening tools.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To validate a new digital Preconception Health Assessment Tool (PreCHAT) against the current best practice, physician-delivered tool in Ontario, Canada, and explore how PreCHAT's design impacts its risk identification abilities relative to the comparison tool.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A criterion validation study was conducted with 53 female participants aged 18-44 years. Participants completed both tools in a controlled setting. PreCHAT was completed on a tablet individually by participants, while the comparison tool was administered by a physician. Three physicians administered the comparison tool. Measures of strength of agreement between PreCHAT and the comparison tool were calculated using percent agreement, Cohen's Kappa, and prevalence-adjusted and biased-adjusted kappa (PABAK).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PreCHAT identified 135 individual risk factors, while the comparison tool identified 102. Both tools shared the same 14 domains of preconception care and 88 risk factors; of the 88 risk factors, PreCHAT identified an average of 3.42 (p < 0.0001) more risks per participant than the comparison tool. PABAK scores indicated almost perfect agreement between PreCHAT and the comparison tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that PreCHAT is valid against the current best practice tool and is broader in its risk identification among individuals of reproductive age. PreCHAT's patient-facing, digital, EMR-integrated design may offer unique benefits to providers and patients. PreCHAT offers providers an innovative approach to deliver preconception care and may positively impact reproductive, maternal, and child health.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46661,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Nursing Research\",\"volume\":\"55 2\",\"pages\":\"206-215\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Nursing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08445621221112668\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08445621221112668","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究背景:尽管人们对孕前保健的了解越来越多,但其提供仍然存在许多障碍,包括缺乏循证、可获得的筛查工具。目的:验证一种新的数字孕前健康评估工具(PreCHAT)与加拿大安大略省目前的最佳实践,医生交付的工具,并探讨PreCHAT的设计如何影响其相对于比较工具的风险识别能力。方法:对53名年龄在18-44岁的女性进行标准验证研究。参与者在受控环境下完成了这两种工具。PreCHAT由参与者单独在片剂上完成,而比较工具由医生管理。三名医生管理比较工具。PreCHAT与比较工具之间的一致性度量使用一致性百分比、Cohen’s Kappa、患病率调整Kappa和偏倚调整Kappa (PABAK)来计算。结果:PreCHAT识别出135个个体危险因素,而比较工具识别出102个。这两个工具都有相同的14个孕前护理领域和88个风险因素;在88个危险因素中,PreCHAT平均识别出3.42个(p)。结论:本研究表明,PreCHAT与目前的最佳实践工具相比是有效的,并且在育龄个体的风险识别方面更广泛。PreCHAT面向患者的数字化电子病历集成设计可能为提供者和患者提供独特的好处。PreCHAT为提供者提供了一种提供孕前护理的创新方法,并可能对生殖、孕产妇和儿童健康产生积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Validating PreCHAT: A Digital Preconception Health Risk Assessment Tool to Improve Reproductive, Maternal and Child Health.

Study background: Despite the growing understanding of preconception care, numerous barriers to its delivery still exist, including a lack of evidence-based, accessible screening tools.

Purpose: To validate a new digital Preconception Health Assessment Tool (PreCHAT) against the current best practice, physician-delivered tool in Ontario, Canada, and explore how PreCHAT's design impacts its risk identification abilities relative to the comparison tool.

Methods: A criterion validation study was conducted with 53 female participants aged 18-44 years. Participants completed both tools in a controlled setting. PreCHAT was completed on a tablet individually by participants, while the comparison tool was administered by a physician. Three physicians administered the comparison tool. Measures of strength of agreement between PreCHAT and the comparison tool were calculated using percent agreement, Cohen's Kappa, and prevalence-adjusted and biased-adjusted kappa (PABAK).

Results: PreCHAT identified 135 individual risk factors, while the comparison tool identified 102. Both tools shared the same 14 domains of preconception care and 88 risk factors; of the 88 risk factors, PreCHAT identified an average of 3.42 (p < 0.0001) more risks per participant than the comparison tool. PABAK scores indicated almost perfect agreement between PreCHAT and the comparison tool.

Conclusions: This study suggests that PreCHAT is valid against the current best practice tool and is broader in its risk identification among individuals of reproductive age. PreCHAT's patient-facing, digital, EMR-integrated design may offer unique benefits to providers and patients. PreCHAT offers providers an innovative approach to deliver preconception care and may positively impact reproductive, maternal, and child health.

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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.80%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: We are pleased to announce the launch of the CJNR digital archive, an online archive available through the McGill University Library, and hosted by the McGill University Library Digital Collections Program in perpetuity. This archive has been made possible through a Richard M. Tomlinson Digital Library Innovation and Access Award to the McGill School of Nursing. The Richard M. Tomlinson award recognizes the ongoing contribution and commitment the CJNR has made to the McGill School of Nursing, and to the development and nursing science in Canada and worldwide. We hope this archive proves to be an invaluable research tool for researchers in Nursing and other faculties.
期刊最新文献
Navigating the Unseen Strain: The Hidden Challenges of Black Nursing Faculty in the Fight Against Anti-Black Racism. Developing Policy Infrastructure to Guide Genomics-Informed Oncology Nursing in Canada: An Interpretive Descriptive Study. "Treat Me Like a Person": Unveiling Healthcare Narratives of Muslim Women who Wear Islamic Head Coverings Through a Poststructural Narrative Study. Facilitators and Barriers to Developing a Research Program: A Focused Ethnography of New Tenure-Track PhD-Prepared Nursing Faculty. Psycho-social Stressors Experienced by Young war Refugees in Developed Countries: A Scoping Review.
×
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