Fetal health surveillance: a community-wide approach versus a tailored intervention for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The decreased use of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for healthy women in labour and the increased provision of professional support to all women in labour is recommended by experts. We evaluated the effectiveness of a community-wide approach to transferring research results to practice using a regional committee, newsletter articles and annual conference presentations compared with an additional tailored hospital intervention involving workshops to enhance self-efficacy for nurses, policy review, multidisciplinary meetings, rounds and unit discussions. METHODS: We compared the proportion of women at low risk who received EFM and the proportion of nurses' time spent providing labour support before and after the intervention within each of 4 hospitals (2 tertiary and 2 secondary). One hospital of either type was randomly selected to receive the tailored intervention. Randomly selected charts (n = 200) were reviewed for the use of EFM at each hospital before (1995) and after (1996) the intervention. Trained observers at randomly selected times recorded the nurses' activities, including time spent providing labour support before and after the intervention. RESULTS: At the intervention secondary hospital, there was a large decrease in the use of EFM, from 90.1% before to 41.0% after the intervention (p < 0.001), but no change in nurses' time spent providing labour support. At the intervention tertiary hospital there was no change in EFM rates, but there was a small, statistically significant increase in time spent providing labour support (23.5% to 29.8%, p < 0.001). A negative effect on time spent providing labour support was found at the control secondary hospital (decrease from 19.6% to 12.8%, p < 0.001), with no change in the EFM rate. At the control tertiary hospital there was a small decrease in the use of EFM, from 99.5% to 91.4% (p < 0.001), but no change in time spent providing labour support. INTERPRETATION: The results are mixed, and the tailored intervention thus appeared to have limited effects. No association was found between the reduction in the use of EFM and an increase in nurses' time spent providing labour support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".