CO-DESIGNING AN IMPROVED PRENATAL EXPERIENCE WITH DIGITAL VISIT PREPARATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Increased prenatal care satisfaction is associated with positive clinical and business outcomes. Despite a link between pre-visit preparation interventions and patient satisfaction, little is known about the development of digital pre-visit interventions to improve prenatal patient satisfaction. Methods: A two-phase approach was employed. In the first phase, a mixed-methods survey was deployed to establish determinants of patient satisfaction, to identify unmet patient needs, determine current preparation practices and determine what visit patients felt the least prepared for. A convenience sample of 87 prenatal patients completed a self-administered survey on a tablet within 4 weeks of their estimated due date. In the second phase, a combination of participant interviews and staff workshops followed a Design Thinking methodology to co-design a prototype intervention to help patients prepare for their visit. Results: Of the participants surveyed, 94.1% reported feeling satisfied with their prenatal care. Visit preparedness was found to be a statistically significant predictor of overall satisfaction. Preparedness was lowest in early pregnancy and for primigravida patients. Patients reported a mismatch between high informational needs and low visit frequency in early pregnancy. To fulfill their information needs, participants conducted frequent research on their pregnancy, often using digital resources such as websites, peer-forums, mobile applications and social media. Participants reported low satisfaction with system characteristics of their care, citing the wait time needed to see their provider, time spent in the waiting room and a lack of flexibility in appointment scheduling as pain points in their care. Utilizing a Design Thinking approach, a prototype digital on-boarding package was co-developed with patients and clinic staff. Conclusions for Practice: Implementation of a digital on-boarding package for patients ahead of their first visit has the potential to fulfill informational needs and set expectations for their care journey, which in turn can increase preparedness and satisfaction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".