The impact of implementing patient‐reported measures in routine maternity care: a systematic review. (5th September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chen, An; Väyrynen, Kirsi; Schmidt, Alexandra; Leskelä, Riikka‐Leena; Torkki, Paulus; Heinonen, Seppo; Tekay, Aydin; Acharya, Ganesh
• Is Part Of: Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. Volume 101:Number 11(2022)
• Page Start: 1184
• Page End: 1196
• Publication Date: 2022-09-05
• Subjects: healthcare quality -- impact -- implementation -- maternity care -- patient reported measure -- pregnancy and childbirth; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Pregnancy -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14446
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-6349

Abstract

Abstract: 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 emperical 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 emperically 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 emperical 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 emperical 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. Abstract : The limited emperical evidence tentatively suggested that the routine use of patient‐reported measures in maternity care could have positive effects at individual health level and clinical level, but currently available evidence was far from convincing and consistent, and the confidence on the review findings was low to moderate.