9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Developing a midwifery service task list for Chinese midwives in the task-shifting context: a Delphi study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To develop and validate a midwifery-led task list in the task-shifting context.

          Design

          An extensive literature review followed by a two-iterative Delphi survey.

          Setting

          Twenty university hospitals, three non-university hospitals and four university colleges from nine provincial regions of China.

          Participants

          Purposive non-probability sampling of a national panel of experts in maternal healthcare, obstetrics, nursing and midwifery. Experts in the panel were asked to rate each midwifery service item regarding importance, feasibility and advancement on a 5-point scale, in order to determine those best suited for midwifery-led practice in China.

          Results

          Two rounds of Delphi surveys were completed before consensus was achieved, with effective response rate ranging from 96.4% (27/28) to 100% (27/27), indicating a high positive coefficient of the experts. The authority coefficient of experts was 0.882, indicating the high reliability of this study. The Kendall harmony coefficient (W) in the two rounds of consultations was 0.196 (p<0.001) and 0.324 (p<0.001), respectively. A detailed, three-level midwifery-led task list was developed, including 3 domains of midwifery practice (first-level indicators), 13 types of task (second-level indicators) and 58 midwifery service items (third-level indicators). The 3 domains of midwifery practice involved the appropriate scope of practice for Chinese midwives, including antenatal care, intrapartum care and postnatal care. The 58 service items embraced core components of caring task in the Chinese midwifery profession.

          Conclusion

          This study outlines the first midwifery-led task list that defines clearly the Chinese midwives’ scope of practice. It will provide a foundational framework for future midwifery practice in China and abroad, and can be used to inform the design of midwifery-led task shifting interventions in various maternity settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.

          To investigate how consensus is operationalized in Delphi studies and to explore the role of consensus in determining the results of these studies. Systematic review of a random sample of 100 English language Delphi studies, from two large multidisciplinary databases [ISI Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, NY) and Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL)], published between 2000 and 2009. About 98 of the Delphi studies purported to assess consensus, although a definition for consensus was only provided in 72 of the studies (64 a priori). The most common definition for consensus was percent agreement (25 studies), with 75% being the median threshold to define consensus. Although the authors concluded in 86 of the studies that consensus was achieved, consensus was only specified a priori (with a threshold value) in 42 of these studies. Achievement of consensus was related to the decision to stop the Delphi study in only 23 studies, with 70 studies terminating after a specified number of rounds. Although consensus generally is felt to be of primary importance to the Delphi process, definitions of consensus vary widely and are poorly reported. Improved criteria for reporting of methods of Delphi studies are required. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques

            Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how ‘consensus’ is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of ‘experts.’ Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

              Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2021
                15 July 2021
                : 11
                : 7
                : e044792
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Nursing , Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University , Shanghai, China
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health , School of Public Health, Fudan University , Shanghai, China
                [3 ]departmentGlobal Health Institute , Fudan University , Shanghai, China
                [4 ]departmentDepartment of Women’s and Children’s Health, Reproductive Health , Karolinska Institute , Stockholm, Sweden
                [5 ]departmentDepartment of Obstetrics , Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University , Shanghai, China
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Xu Qian; xqian@ 123456shmu.edu.cn ; Yan Ding; ding_yan@ 123456fudan.edu.cn
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1806-008X
                Article
                bmjopen-2020-044792
                10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044792
                8286777
                34266838
                270c0033-fed3-451b-864f-92ae38a66f82
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 13 September 2020
                : 16 June 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: National Natural Science Foundation of China;
                Award ID: Grant No.71874030
                Categories
                Public Health
                1506
                1724
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                organisation of health services,obstetrics,perinatology,public health,health services administration & management

                Comments

                Comment on this article