Cargando…

What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence on the perceptions of healthcare providers (HCPs) about the quality of oxytocin and misoprostol available in their settings, and their actions as a result of these perceptions. DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included quantitative...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Torloni, Maria Regina, Betran, Ana Pilar, Vazquez Corona, Martha, Bohren, Meghan, Widmer, Mariana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10618966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37899165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068442
_version_ 1785129887741247488
author Torloni, Maria Regina
Betran, Ana Pilar
Vazquez Corona, Martha
Bohren, Meghan
Widmer, Mariana
author_facet Torloni, Maria Regina
Betran, Ana Pilar
Vazquez Corona, Martha
Bohren, Meghan
Widmer, Mariana
author_sort Torloni, Maria Regina
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence on the perceptions of healthcare providers (HCPs) about the quality of oxytocin and misoprostol available in their settings, and their actions as a result of these perceptions. DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included quantitative and qualitative studies reporting HCPs’ perceptions about oxytocin or misoprostol quality. DATA SOURCES: We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Ebscohost, Embase, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, Portal regional BVS, PsycNET, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to 31 March 2022 and grey literature. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Center for Evidence-Based Management critical appraisal tool for surveys. For qualitative studies, we used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We conducted separate quantitative and qualitative syntheses and integrated the evidence into a narrative synthesis (convergent segregated review design). RESULTS: We included five (three quantitative and two qualitative) studies, of moderate or high quality, conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In the three quantitative studies (N=7065 participants), 8.2–21.3% of HCPs had experienced problems due to known/suspected low-quality oxytocin and 3.3% due to low-quality misoprostol. In the two qualitative studies, perception of oxytocin quality varied. In quantitative studies, when confronted with suspected/known low-quality oxytocin, 29–78% of HCPs would inform a supervisor, 62% would document this in writing, 45–54% would change to another drug and 5–37% would double the dose of oxytocin. Qualitative evidence suggests that many HCPs do not formally report suspected low-quality oxytocin or misoprostol, and use higher doses or additional uterotonics. CONCLUSIONS: A proportion of HCPs from LMICs perceive oxytocin to be of low quality. There is very limited evidence on their perceptions about misoprostol. Many HCPs do not report suspected low-quality uterotonics but change to another medicine or double the dose of oxytocin. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022323812.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10618966
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106189662023-11-02 What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review Torloni, Maria Regina Betran, Ana Pilar Vazquez Corona, Martha Bohren, Meghan Widmer, Mariana BMJ Open Obstetrics and Gynaecology OBJECTIVES: To synthesise evidence on the perceptions of healthcare providers (HCPs) about the quality of oxytocin and misoprostol available in their settings, and their actions as a result of these perceptions. DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included quantitative and qualitative studies reporting HCPs’ perceptions about oxytocin or misoprostol quality. DATA SOURCES: We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Ebscohost, Embase, PubMed, Global Index Medicus, Portal regional BVS, PsycNET, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to 31 March 2022 and grey literature. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Center for Evidence-Based Management critical appraisal tool for surveys. For qualitative studies, we used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We conducted separate quantitative and qualitative syntheses and integrated the evidence into a narrative synthesis (convergent segregated review design). RESULTS: We included five (three quantitative and two qualitative) studies, of moderate or high quality, conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In the three quantitative studies (N=7065 participants), 8.2–21.3% of HCPs had experienced problems due to known/suspected low-quality oxytocin and 3.3% due to low-quality misoprostol. In the two qualitative studies, perception of oxytocin quality varied. In quantitative studies, when confronted with suspected/known low-quality oxytocin, 29–78% of HCPs would inform a supervisor, 62% would document this in writing, 45–54% would change to another drug and 5–37% would double the dose of oxytocin. Qualitative evidence suggests that many HCPs do not formally report suspected low-quality oxytocin or misoprostol, and use higher doses or additional uterotonics. CONCLUSIONS: A proportion of HCPs from LMICs perceive oxytocin to be of low quality. There is very limited evidence on their perceptions about misoprostol. Many HCPs do not report suspected low-quality uterotonics but change to another medicine or double the dose of oxytocin. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022323812. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10618966/ /pubmed/37899165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068442 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Torloni, Maria Regina
Betran, Ana Pilar
Vazquez Corona, Martha
Bohren, Meghan
Widmer, Mariana
What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review
title What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review
title_full What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review
title_fullStr What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review
title_full_unstemmed What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review
title_short What do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? A mixed-methods systematic review
title_sort what do healthcare providers think of the quality of uterotonics? a mixed-methods systematic review
topic Obstetrics and Gynaecology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10618966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37899165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068442
work_keys_str_mv AT torlonimariaregina whatdohealthcareprovidersthinkofthequalityofuterotonicsamixedmethodssystematicreview
AT betrananapilar whatdohealthcareprovidersthinkofthequalityofuterotonicsamixedmethodssystematicreview
AT vazquezcoronamartha whatdohealthcareprovidersthinkofthequalityofuterotonicsamixedmethodssystematicreview
AT bohrenmeghan whatdohealthcareprovidersthinkofthequalityofuterotonicsamixedmethodssystematicreview
AT widmermariana whatdohealthcareprovidersthinkofthequalityofuterotonicsamixedmethodssystematicreview