TY - JOUR
T1 - The impact of implementing patient-reported measures in routine maternity care
T2 - a systematic review
AU - Chen, An
AU - Väyrynen, Kirsi
AU - Schmidt, Alexandra
AU - Leskelä, Riikka Leena
AU - Torkki, Paulus
AU - Heinonen, Seppo
AU - Tekay, Aydin
AU - Acharya, Ganesh
N1 - Funding Information:
This study is financially supported by National Research Foundation for University‐Level Research in Finland (HUS/358/2020‐TYH2021127) and Finland PoDoCo Foundation of Economic Education.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).
PY - 2022/11
Y1 - 2022/11
N2 - Introduction: While there is growing interest in applying patient-reported measures (PRMs) in clinical routine, limited collective evidence of the impact of PRMs hinder their widespread use in specific contexts, such as maternity care. Our objective was to synthesize existing empirical evidence on the impact of implementing PRMs in routine maternity care. Material and methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (version 2020). We electronically searched six databases for the literature on the implementation of PRMs in maternity care. A multi-level (woman, clinical, organizational, national and societal) analytic framework for analyzing and synthesizing empirically proven impacts of PRMs was developed. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess the confidence in the review findings and arguments. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021234501). Results: Overall, 4971 articles were screened. The empirical evidence, collected from 11 relevant studies, showed that the use of PRMs in routine maternity care could produce positive effects on clinical process (assessment and detection of health problems, clinical visit preparation, resource use, woman–professional communication, decision-making, woman–professional relationship, and care quality), and health behavior and outcomes (women's health and wellbeing, quality of life, health behavior, experiences and satisfaction with healthcare services), awareness, engagement and self-management of own health, and disclosure of health issues. The confidence in the review findings was low to moderate due to a limited number of studies, inadequate data and methodological limitations of included studies. Conclusions: The limited empirical evidence available suggested that the use of PRMs may have positive effects at the individual health level and clinical process level. However, the evidence was not strong enough to provide policy recommendations on the use of PRMs in routine maternity care. This review revealed limitations of currently available research, such as lack of generalizability and narrow scopes in investigating impact. Efforts are needed to improve the quality of research on the use of PRMs in routine maternity care by widening the study population, including different types of PRMs, and considering the effects of PRMs at different levels and domains of healthcare.
AB - Introduction: While there is growing interest in applying patient-reported measures (PRMs) in clinical routine, limited collective evidence of the impact of PRMs hinder their widespread use in specific contexts, such as maternity care. Our objective was to synthesize existing empirical evidence on the impact of implementing PRMs in routine maternity care. Material and methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (version 2020). We electronically searched six databases for the literature on the implementation of PRMs in maternity care. A multi-level (woman, clinical, organizational, national and societal) analytic framework for analyzing and synthesizing empirically proven impacts of PRMs was developed. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. The GRADE-CERQual approach was used to assess the confidence in the review findings and arguments. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021234501). Results: Overall, 4971 articles were screened. The empirical evidence, collected from 11 relevant studies, showed that the use of PRMs in routine maternity care could produce positive effects on clinical process (assessment and detection of health problems, clinical visit preparation, resource use, woman–professional communication, decision-making, woman–professional relationship, and care quality), and health behavior and outcomes (women's health and wellbeing, quality of life, health behavior, experiences and satisfaction with healthcare services), awareness, engagement and self-management of own health, and disclosure of health issues. The confidence in the review findings was low to moderate due to a limited number of studies, inadequate data and methodological limitations of included studies. Conclusions: The limited empirical evidence available suggested that the use of PRMs may have positive effects at the individual health level and clinical process level. However, the evidence was not strong enough to provide policy recommendations on the use of PRMs in routine maternity care. This review revealed limitations of currently available research, such as lack of generalizability and narrow scopes in investigating impact. Efforts are needed to improve the quality of research on the use of PRMs in routine maternity care by widening the study population, including different types of PRMs, and considering the effects of PRMs at different levels and domains of healthcare.
KW - healthcare quality
KW - impact
KW - implementation
KW - maternity care
KW - patient reported measure
KW - pregnancy and childbirth
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138293865&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/aogs.14446
DO - 10.1111/aogs.14446
M3 - Review Article
C2 - 36065150
AN - SCOPUS:85138293865
SN - 0001-6349
VL - 101
SP - 1184
EP - 1196
JO - Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
JF - Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
IS - 11
ER -