Identifying barriers to the availability and use of Magnesium Sulphate Injection in resource poor countries: A case study in Zambia

Abstract Background Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are serious complications of pregnancy and major causes of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. According to systematic reviews and WHO guidelines magnesium sulphate injection (MgSO4) should be the first -line treatment for severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Studies have shown that this safe and effective medicine is unavailable and underutilized in many resource poor countries. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to the availability and use of MgSO4 in the Zambian Public Health System. Methods A 'fishbone' (Ishikawa) diagram listing probable facilitators to the availability and use of MgSO4 identified from the literature was used to develop an assessment tool. Barriers to availability and use of MgSO4 were assessed at the regulatory/government, supply, procurement, distribution, health facility and health professional levels. The assessment was completed during August 2008 using archival data, and observations at a pragmatic sample of health facilities providing obstetric services in Lusaka District, Zambia. Results The major barrier to the availability of MgSO4 within the public health system in Zambia was lack of procurement by the Ministry of Health. Other barriers identified included a lack of demand by health professionals at the health centre level and a lack of in-service training in the use of MgSO4. Where there was demand by obstetricians, magnesium sulphate injection was being procured from the private sector by the hospital pharmacy despite not being registered and licensed for use for the treatment of severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia by the national Pharmaceutical Regulatory Authority. Conclusions The case study in Zambia highlights the complexities that underlie making essential medicines available and used appropriately. The fishbone diagram is a useful theoretical framework for illustrating the complexity of translating research findings into clinical practice. A better understanding of the supply system and of the pattern of demand for MgSO4 in Zambia should enable policy makers and stakeholders to develop and implement appropriate interventions to improve the availability and use of MgSO4

Developing evidence-based maternity care in Iran: a quality improvement study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Current Iranian perinatal statistics indicate that maternity care continues to need improvement. In response, we implemented a multi-faceted intervention to improve the quality of maternity care at an Iranian Social Security Hospital. Using a before-and-after design our aim was to improve the uptake of selected evidence based practices and more closely attend to identified women's needs and preferences.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The major steps of the study were to (1) identify women's needs, values and preferences via interviews, (2) select through a process of professional consensus the top evidence-based clinical recommendations requiring local implementation (3) redesign care based on the selected evidence-based recommendations and women's views, and (4) implement the new care model. We measured the impact of the new care model on maternal satisfaction and caesarean birth rates utilising maternal surveys and medical record audit before and after implementation of the new care model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty women's needs and requirements as well as ten evidence-based clinical recommendations were selected as a basis for improving care. Following the introduction of the new model of care, women's satisfaction levels improved significantly on 16 of 20 items (p < 0.0001) compared with baseline. Seventy-eight percent of studied women experienced care consistent with the new model and fewer women had a caesarean birth (30% compared with 42% previously).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The introduction of a quality improvement care model improved compliance with evidence-based guidelines and was associated with an improvement in women's satisfaction levels and a reduction in rates of caesarean birth.</p

A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In healthcare, a gap exists between what is known from research and what is practiced. Understanding this gap depends upon our ability to robustly measure research utilization.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The objectives of this systematic review were: to identify self-report measures of research utilization used in healthcare, and to assess the psychometric properties (acceptability, reliability, and validity) of these measures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic review of literature reporting use or development of self-report research utilization measures. Our search included: multiple databases, ancestry searches, and a hand search. Acceptability was assessed by examining time to complete the measure and missing data rates. Our approach to reliability and validity assessment followed that outlined in the <it>Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 42,770 titles screened, 97 original studies (108 articles) were included in this review. The 97 studies reported on the use or development of 60 unique self-report research utilization measures. Seven of the measures were assessed in more than one study. Study samples consisted of healthcare providers (92 studies) and healthcare decision makers (5 studies). No studies reported data on acceptability of the measures. Reliability was reported in 32 (33%) of the studies, representing 13 of the 60 measures. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) reliability was reported in 31 studies; values exceeded 0.70 in 29 studies. Test-retest reliability was reported in 3 studies with Pearson's <it>r </it>coefficients > 0.80. No validity information was reported for 12 of the 60 measures. The remaining 48 measures were classified into a three-level validity hierarchy according to the number of validity sources reported in 50% or more of the studies using the measure. Level one measures (n = 6) reported evidence from any three (out of four possible) <it>Standards </it>validity sources (which, in the case of single item measures, was all applicable validity sources). Level two measures (n = 16) had evidence from any two validity sources, and level three measures (n = 26) from only one validity source.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This review reveals significant underdevelopment in the measurement of research utilization. Substantial methodological advances with respect to construct clarity, use of research utilization and related theory, use of measurement theory, and psychometric assessment are required. Also needed are improved reporting practices and the adoption of a more contemporary view of validity (<it>i.e.</it>, the <it>Standards</it>) in future research utilization measurement studies.</p