MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2616335466

Identifying Barriers and Facilitators towards Implementing Guidelines to Reduce Caesarean Section Rates in Quebec/Identification Des Elements Empachant Ou Facilitant la Mise En Oeuvre Des Directives Visant a Reduire Les Taux D'accouchement Par Cesarienne Au Quebec/Identificacion De Los Factores Que Impiden O Favorecen la Aplicacion De Protocolos Orientados a Reducir Las Tasas De Cesarea En Quebec

2007· article· fr· W2616335466 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nils Chaillet, Éric Dubé, Marylène Dugas, Diane Francoeur, Johanne Dubé, Sonia Gagnon, Lucie Poitras, Alexandre Dumont

Notice bibliographique

RevueBulletin of the World Health Organization · 2007
Typearticle
Languefr
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueClinical practice guidelines implementation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCaesarean sectionMedicineVaginal deliveryFamily medicineNursingPromotion (chess)ObstetricsPregnancyPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background The World Health Organization recommends that the caesarean section rate should not be higher than 10% to 15%. (1) The caesarean delivery rate in Canada increased steadily from 17.5% of deliveries in 1994-1995 to 23.7% in 2002-2003. (2,3) Moreover, caesarean delivery was associated with high maternal and neonatal complication rates and increased healthcare costs. (4-9) According to the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), vaginal delivery represents the safest route for the fetus and newborn in the first and subsequent pregnancies. (10) SOGC clinical practices guidelines contribute to the promotion of evidence-based practice and represent an appropriate means for reducing caesarean section rates in Canada. The challenge lies in implementing these guidelines. (11-15) Each clinical environment presents organizational, professional, maternal and cultural particularities. The identification of specific barriers and facilitators represents a new approach for identifying the determinants of guidelines use by health professionals. (7,15-18) This study's premise is that strategies to implement guidelines and reduce caesarean section rates should take into account physicians' perceptions in order to identify different forces and variables influencing their behaviour. Consequently, we carried out an exploratory study to investigate obstetricians' perceptions of SOGC guidelines, and to identify barriers to, facilitators of and obstetricians' solutions for their implementation. Methods We used a qualitative study design to explore and describe obstetricians' perceptions in three Montreal hospitals (one primary-level, one secondary-level and one tertiary-level), (19) with annual deliveries [less than or equal to] 1000, caesarean section rates [greater than or equal to] 20%, and where 75% of obstetricians agreed to participate. Data was obtained from two focus group sessions, with obstetricians from each of the three hospitals, dealing with induction of labour at term and fetal health surveillance in labour guidelines, and operative vaginal birth and vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth guidelines. For secondary-level and tertiary-level hospitals, with more than 10 clinicians, focus groups were divided into two sessions; thus there were four focus groups in each hospital. All obstetricians were approached to participate in the study. Data sources and collection A focus group gathers people from similar backgrounds or experiences to discuss a specific topic of interest. (19) Focus groups conducted at each unit were scheduled at the convenience of participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians who were notable to take part in the focus groups. The focus groups and personal interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes. A moderator, also referred to as an interviewer, conducted each focus group in the presence of an observer, but only the moderator conducted the semi-structured interviews. The moderator was in control of the session and was responsible for the direction taken by the focus group. The main tasks of the observer were to take notes, including non-verbal observations, to record and observe the session. All focus groups and interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. The interviewer and observer reconstructed detailed notes of each interview immediately after the session. An interview guide was used for all focus groups and interviews (Annex 1, available at http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/85/10/06-039289/en/index.html). Focus groups and interviews about SOGC guidelines were structured in the following manner: respondents were asked to describe their perceptions about the adoption of recommendations, barriers and challenges encountered when following the recommendations, and factors and interventions they believed important for facilitating and supporting use of the recommendations. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,037
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,270

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,442
Écart entre enseignants0,370 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBulletin of the World Health OrganizationMême sujetClinical practice guidelines implementationTravaux en français237 207