Barriers to and Facilitators of Using eHealth to Support Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Self-management:Systematic Literature Review of Perceptions of Health Care Professionals and Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most common medical complications during pregnancy. eHealth technologies are proving to be successful in supporting the self-management of medical conditions. Digital technologies have the potential to improve GDM self-management. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this systematic literature review was to identify the views of health professionals (HPs) and women with GDM regarding the use of eHealth for GDM self-management. The secondary objective was to investigate the usability and user satisfaction levels when using these technologies. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) approach, the search included primary papers in English on the evaluation of technology to support self-management of GDM from January 2008 to September 2021 using MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, ACM, and IEEE databases. The lists of references from previous systematic literature reviews, which were related to technology and GDM, were also examined for primary studies. Papers with qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methodologies were included and evaluated. The selected papers were assessed for quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist, and McGill University Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. NVivo (QSR International) was used to extract qualitative data, which were subjected to thematic analysis. Narrative synthesis was used to analyze the quantitative data. RESULTS: A total of 26 papers were included in the review. Of these, 19% (5/26) of studies used quantitative research methodologies, 19% (5/26) used qualitative methods, and 62% (16/26) used mixed methods. In all, 4 themes were identified from the qualitative data: the benefits of using technology, engagement with people via technology, the usability of technology, and discouragement factors for the use of technology. The thematic analysis revealed a vast scope of challenges and facilitators in the use of GDM self-management systems. The challenges included usability aspects of the system, technical problems, data privacy, lack of emotional support, the accuracy of reported data, and adoption of the system by HPs. Convenience, improved GDM self-management, peer support, increased motivation, increased independence, and consistent monitoring were facilitators to use these technologies. Quantitative data showed that there is potential for improving the usability of the GDM self-management systems. It also showed that convenience, usefulness, increasing motivation for GDM self-management, helping with GDM self-management, and being monitored by HPs were facilitators to use the GDM self-management systems. CONCLUSIONS: This novel systematic literature review shows that HPs and women with GDM encountered some challenges in using GDM self-management systems. The usability of GDM systems was the primary challenge derived from qualitative and quantitative results, with convenience, consistent monitoring, and optimization of GDM self-management emerging as important facilitators

Routinely collected infant feeding data:Time for global action

The importance of breastfeeding is clear. However, global action to support breastfeeding is hindered by the lack of reliable standard data, which continues to impede progress. Routinely collected data can monitor the effectiveness of health policy, evaluate interventions, and enhance international research collaboration and comparisons. Use of routine data to support effective public health initiatives such as smoking cessation has been demonstrated. However, the data collected about infant feeding practices worldwide is inconsistent in timing, methods, definitions, detail, storage, and consistency. Improvements to the reach and quality of routinely collected data about infant feeding are needed to strengthen the global evidence and policy base. An international collaborative effort is called for to progress this

Antenatal care trial interventions: a systematic scoping review and taxonomy development of care models

BACKGROUND: Antenatal care models vary widely around the world, reflecting local contexts, drivers and resources. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the impact of multi-component antenatal care interventions on service delivery and outcomes in many countries since the 1980s. Some have applied entirely new schemes, while others have modified existing care delivery approaches. Systematic reviews (SRs) indicate that some specific antenatal interventions are more effective than others; however the causal mechanisms leading to better outcomes are poorly understood, limiting implementation and future research. As a first step in identifying what might be making the difference we conducted a scoping review of interventions tested in RCTs in order to establish a taxonomy of antenatal care models. METHODS: A protocol-driven systematic search was undertaken of databases for RCTs and SRs reporting antenatal care interventions. Results were unrestricted by time or locality, but limited to English language. Key characteristics of both experimental and control interventions in the included trials were mapped using SPIO (Study design; Population; Intervention; Outcomes) criteria and the intervention and principal outcome measures were described. Commonalities and differences between the components that were being tested in each study were identified by consensus, resulting in a comprehensive description of emergent models for antenatal care interventions. RESULTS: Of 13,050 articles retrieved, we identified 153 eligible articles including 130 RCTs in 34 countries. The interventions tested in these trials varied from the number of visits to the location of care provision, and from the content of care to the professional/lay group providing that care. In most studies neither intervention nor control arm was well described. Our analysis of the identified trials of antenatal care interventions produced the following taxonomy: Universal provision model (for all women irrespective of health state or complications); Restricted 'lower-risk'-based provision model (midwifery-led or reduced/flexible visit approach for healthy women); Augmented provision model (antenatal care as in Universal provision above but augmented by clinical, educational or behavioural intervention); Targeted 'higher-risk'-based provision model (for woman with defined clinical or socio-demographic risk factors). The first category was most commonly tested in low-income countries (i.e. resource-poor settings), particularly in Asia. The other categories were tested around the world. The trials included a range of care providers, including midwives, nurses, doctors, and lay workers. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions can be defined and described in many ways. The intended antenatal care population group proved the simplest and most clinically relevant way of distinguishing trials which might otherwise be categorised together. Since our review excluded non-trial interventions, the taxonomy does not represent antenatal care provision worldwide. It offers a stable and reproducible approach to describing the purpose and content of models of antenatal care which have been tested in a trial. It highlights a lack of reported detail of trial interventions and usual care processes. It provides a baseline for future work to examine and test the salient characteristics of the most effective models, and could also help decision-makers and service planners in planning implementation

An exploration of the influences on under-representation of male pre-registration nursing students

Background:- Worldwide, men are under-represented in the nursing profession. In Scotland less than 10% of pre-registration nursing students are male. Reasons for this imbalance need to be understood. Objectives:- To explore the views of male pre-registration nursing students, nursing lecturers and school teachers about this imbalance. Design:- Mixed methods study using focus groups and online survey. Settings:- Focus groups in four locations across Scotland. Online survey sent to teachers across Scotland. Participants and methods:- Eight focus groups with 33 male nursing students; four focus groups with 21 university and college nursing lecturers; 46 school teachers returned the online survey. Results:- Although nursing was considered a worthwhile career with job stability and many opportunities, it was also viewed as not being a career for men. Assumptions about the profession and femininity were challenging for men and use of the term ‘male nurse’ was felt to be anomalous. In some circumstances the provision of intimate care to particular patient groups caused difficulty. Positive encouragement from others, a positive role model or knowledge of nursing from significant others could be helpful. However concerns about low earning potential and negative media publicity about the NHS could be a disincentive. Being mature and having resilience were important to cope with being a male nursing student in a mainly female workplace. Some more ‘technical’ specialties were felt to be more attractive to men. Conclusions:- Nursing is viewed as a worthwhile career choice for men, but the gendered assumptions about the feminine nature of nursing can be a deterrent

Healthcare providers' views on the acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding:a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Despite a gradual increase in breastfeeding rates, overall in the UK there are wide variations, with a trend towards breastfeeding rates at 6–8 weeks remaining below 40% in less affluent areas. While financial incentives have been used with varying success to encourage positive health related behaviour change, there is little research on their use in encouraging breastfeeding. In this paper, we report on healthcare providers’ views around whether using financial incentives in areas with low breastfeeding rates would be acceptable in principle. This research was part of a larger project looking at the development and feasibility testing of a financial incentive scheme for breastfeeding in preparation for a cluster randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Fifty–three healthcare providers were interviewed about their views on financial incentives for breastfeeding. Participants were purposively sampled to include a wide range of experience and roles associated with supporting mothers with infant feeding. Semi-structured individual and group interviews were conducted. Data were analysed thematically drawing on the principles of Framework Analysis. RESULTS: The key theme emerging from healthcare providers’ views on the acceptability of financial incentives for breastfeeding was their possible impact on ‘facilitating or impeding relationships’. Within this theme several additional aspects were discussed: the mother’s relationship with her healthcare provider and services, with her baby and her family, and with the wider community. In addition, a key priority for healthcare providers was that an incentive scheme should not impact negatively on their professional integrity and responsibility towards women. CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers believe that financial incentives could have both positive and negative impacts on a mother’s relationship with her family, baby and healthcare provider. When designing a financial incentive scheme we must take care to minimise the potential negative impacts that have been highlighted, while at the same time recognising the potential positive impacts for women in areas where breastfeeding rates are low