Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background This study aimed to examine the relationships between various maternal socioeconomic status (SES) indicators and the risk of congenital heart disease (CHD). Methods This was a population-based retrospective cohort study, including all singleton stillbirths and live births in Ontario hospitals from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to examine the relationships between maternal neighbourhood household income, poverty, education level, employment and unemployment status, immigration and minority status, and population density and the risk of CHD. All SES variables were estimated at a dissemination area level and categorized into quintiles. Adjustments were made for maternal age at birth, assisted reproductive technology, obesity, pre-existing maternal health conditions, substance use during pregnancy, rural or urban residence, and infant’s sex. Results Of 804,292 singletons, 9731 (1.21%) infants with CHD were identified. Compared to infants whose mothers lived in the highest income neighbourhoods, infants whose mothers lived in the lowest income neighbourhoods had higher likelihood of developing CHD (adjusted OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.20–1.38). Compared to infants whose mothers lived in the neighbourhoods with the highest percentage of people with a university or higher degree, infants whose mothers lived in the neighbourhoods with the lowest percentage of people with university or higher degree had higher chance of CHD (adjusted OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.24–1.44). Compared to infants whose mothers lived in the neighbourhoods with the highest employment rate, the odds of infants whose mothers resided in areas with the lowest employment having CHD was 18% higher (adjusted OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.10–1.26). Compared to infants whose mothers lived in the neighbourhoods with the lowest proportion of immigrants or minorities, infants whose mothers resided in areas with the highest proportions of immigrants or minorities had 18% lower odds (adjusted OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.77–0.88) and 16% lower odds (adjusted OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78–0.91) of CHD, respectively. Conclusion Lower maternal neighbourhood household income, poverty, lower educational level and unemployment status had positive associations with CHD, highlighting a significant social inequity in Ontario. The findings of lower CHD risk in immigrant and minority neighbourhoods require further investigation.

Background Ontario’s birth Registry (BORN) was established in 2009 to collect, interpret, and share critical data about pregnancy, birth and the early childhood period to facilitate and improve the provision of healthcare. Since the use of routinely-collected health data has been prioritized internationally by governments and funding agencies to improve patient care, support health system planning, and facilitate epidemiological surveillance and research, high quality data is essential. The purpose of this study was to verify the accuracy of a selection of data elements that are entered in the Registry. Methods Data quality was assessed by comparing data re-abstracted from patient records to data entered into the Ontario birth Registry. A purposive sample of 10 hospitals representative of hospitals in Ontario based on level of care, birth volume and geography was selected and a random sample of 100 linked mother and newborn charts were audited for each site. Data for 29 data elements were compared to the corresponding data entered in the Ontario birth Registry using percent agreement, kappa statistics for categorical data elements and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) for continuous data elements. Results Agreement ranged from 56.9 to 99.8%, but 76% of the data elements (22 of 29) had greater than 90% agreement. There was almost perfect (kappa 0.81–0.99) or substantial (kappa 0.61–0.80) agreement for 12 of the categorical elements. Six elements showed fair-to-moderate agreement (kappa <0.60). We found moderate-to-excellent agreement for four continuous data elements (ICC >0.50). Conclusion Overall, the data elements we evaluated in the birth Registry were found to have good agreement with data from the patients’ charts. Data elements that showed moderate kappa or low ICC require further investigation.

ObjectiveTo investigate the interrelationships between maternal socioeconomic status (SES), race and congenital heart diseases (CHD) among infants.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Study settingOntario, Canada.Study populationAll singleton stillbirths and live births born in hospitals between 1 April 2012 and 31 March 2018 in Ontario, Canada (n=804 292).OutcomeCHD.AnalysisMultivariable logistic regression models were performed to assess associations between maternal neighbourhood household income, education level, race and CHD while adjusting for maternal age at birth, assisted reproductive technology, obesity, pre-existing health conditions, substance use during pregnancy, maternal rural residence and infant’s sex.ResultsCompared with infants whose mothers lived in the highest median household income neighbourhoods, infants whose mothers lived in the lowest median income neighbourhoods had a higher likelihood of having CHD (adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24). Compared with infants whose mothers lived in neighbourhoods with more people with a university or higher degree, those infants whose mothers lived in neighbourhoods with less people with a university or higher degree had a higher chance of developing CHD (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.36). Compared with white mothers, black mothers had a higher odds of giving birth to a child with CHD (adjusted OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.54). No association was detected between White and Asian mothers and CHD among infants.ConclusionsOur study indicates that there are inequities in CHD burden by maternal SES and race in Ontario, Canada. Further investigation is needed to examine racial variation in CHD using more detailed ethnic data.

Infant vaccinations are necessary for public health, but are painful, causing distress to the infant and caregivers. Breastfeeding and sucrose effectively reduce infants' pain during vaccinations, and these strategies are recommended in health care provider (HCP)-targeted education and vaccination pain guidelines. However studies show these strategies are infrequently used. YouTube is a popular medium to publicly share and watch videos, and many consumer posted YouTube videos show distressed infants being vaccinated with no pain treatment. The aims of this study were to evaluate the reach and impact of a consumer-targeted YouTube video demonstrating use of effective pain reduction strategies during infant vaccinations. A brief consumer-targeted video showing two infants being vaccinated was posted onto YouTube on October 2013. One infant was breastfed and another infant received sucrose by mouth before and during the injection. A link to a viewer survey was visible on a banner near the end of the video. An intensive strategically planned knowledge dissemination strategy using the media, social media and messages to professional organizations took place to promote the video. Data analysis of the viewer survey, YouTube analytics of the reach of the video in terms of number of views, country of viewers, and comments relating to the video took place 12 months after the video was posted. Twelve months after posting, the video had 65,478views, 68 comments, 245 likes, 17 dislikes, and 90 shares. Average duration of viewer time was 65% of the video. The viewer survey was completed by 156 (0.24%) viewers; 90 (58%) answered as HCPs and 66 (42%) as parents. Survey results showed that the video was persuasive; intent to use or support breastfeeding or sucrose was high in both parents and HCPs after viewing the video. Comments posted were often emotional in nature, and were related to anti-vaccination (n = 26, 38%); effectiveness or positive personal experiences (n = 21, 32%); research team comments or promotion (n = 12, 18%); pro-vaccination (n = 6, 8%) and barriers to using breastfeeding or sucrose during vaccinations (n = 3, 4%). The video posted onto YouTube demonstrating effective pain treatment during infant vaccinations was viewed by large numbers of people around the world, however the response rate to the linked survey was extremely low. Using YouTube videos for knowledge dissemination has an extensive reach, however it is difficult to evaluate impact on behaviours and practices.

The emergence of cell-free fetal DNA (cfDNA) testing technology has disrupted the landscape of prenatal screening for trisomies 21 (T21) and 18 (T18). Publicly funded systems around the world are grappling with how to best integrate this more accurate but costly technology, as there is limited evidence about its incremental value in real-world conditions. The objectives of this study were to describe the population-based performance of Ontario’s prenatal screening program, which incorporates publicly funded cfDNA screening for specific indications, and the effect of cfDNA testing on the screening and diagnostic choices made by pregnant people. We conducted a retrospective, descriptive cohort study using routinely collected data from Better Outcomes & Registry Network (BORN) Ontario, which captures linked population data for prenatal and neonatal health encounters across Ontario. We included all singleton pregnancies with an estimated due date between Sept. 1, 2016, and Mar. 31, 2019, that underwent publicly funded prenatal screening in Ontario, and a comparison cohort from Apr. 1, 2012, and Mar. 31, 2013. We assessed performance of the screening program for the detection of T21 or T18 by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value against diagnostic cytogenetic results or birth outcomes. We assessed the impact of the program by calculating the proportion of T21 screen-positive pregnancies undergoing subsequent cfDNA screening and invasive prenatal diagnostic testing. The study cohort included 373 682 pregnancies. The prenatal screening program had an uptake of 69.9%, a screen-positive rate and sensitivity of 1.6% and 89.9% for T21, and 0.2% and 80.5% for T18, respectively. The test failure rate for cfDNA screening was 2.2%. Invasive prenatal diagnostic testing decreased from 4.4% in 2012–2013 to 2.4% over the study period; 65.2% of pregnant people who received a screen-positive result from cfDNA testing went on to have invasive prenatal diagnostic testing. This publicly funded screening program, incorporating cfDNA analysis for common aneuploidies, showed robust performance, a substantial reduction in invasive prenatal diagnostic testing and that pregnant people exercise autonomy in their choices about prenatal screening and diagnosis.

Background Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. Methods This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. Results The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. Conclusion Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply.

Background Moving evidence into practice is complex, and pregnant and birthing people and their infants do not always receive care that aligns with the best available evidence. Implementation science can inform how to effectively move evidence into practice. While there are a growing number of examples of implementation science being studied in maternal-newborn care settings, it remains unknown how real-world teams of healthcare providers and leaders approach the overall implementation process when making practice changes. The purpose of this study was to describe maternal-newborn hospital teams’ approaches to implementing practice changes. We aimed to identify what implementation steps teams take (or not) and identify strengths and potential areas for improvement based on best practices in implementation science. Methods We conducted a supplementary qualitative secondary analysis of 22 interviews completed in 2014–2015 with maternal-newborn nursing leaders in Ontario, Canada. We used directed content analysis to code the data to seven steps in an implementation framework (Implementation Roadmap): identify the problem and potential best practice; assemble local evidence; select and customize best practice; discover barriers and drivers; tailor implementation strategies; field-test, plan evaluation, prepare to launch; launch, evaluate, and sustain. Frequency counts are presented for each step. Results Participants reported completing a median of 4.5 of 7 Implementation Roadmap steps (range = 3–7), with the most common being identifying a practice problem. Other steps were described less frequently (e.g., selecting and adapting evidence, field-testing, outcome evaluation) or discussed frequently but not optimally (e.g., barriers assessment). Participants provided examples of how they engaged point-of-care staff throughout the implementation process, but provided fewer examples of engaging pregnant and birthing people and their families. Some participants stated they used a formal framework or process to guide their implementation process, with the most common being quality improvement approaches and tools. Conclusions We identified variability across the 22 hospitals in the implementation steps taken. While we observed many strengths, we also identified areas where further support may be needed. Future work is needed to create opportunities and resources to support maternal-newborn healthcare providers and leaders to apply principles and tools from implementation science to their practice change initiatives.

Background Maternal-newborn care does not always align with the best available evidence. Applying implementation science to change initiatives can help move evidence-informed practices into clinical settings. However, it remains unknown to what extent current implementation practices in maternal-newborn care align with recommendations from implementation science, and how confident nurses, other health professionals, and leaders are completing steps in the implementation process. We aimed to understand Ontario maternal-newborn teams’ (1) approaches to implementing practice changes and the extent to which their implementation processes aligned with an implementation science planned-action framework; and (2) perceptions of importance and confidence completing implementation activities. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey between September–November 2023. Using purposive sampling, we invited Ontario maternal-newborn nurses, other healthcare professionals, and leaders who had experience participating in or leading implementation projects to complete an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was informed by an implementation science framework, which includes three core phases (identify issue; build solutions; implement, evaluate, sustain). The questions probed respondents’ perceptions of frequency of completion, importance, and confidence for each of the 28 implementation activities. We used descriptive statistics for the closed-ended questions and grouped the written responses into categories. Results We received 73 responses from 57 Ontario maternal-newborn hospitals, the majority being nurses in point-of-care and leadership roles. Nearly all respondents agreed that each of the 28 implementation activities were important. Respondents reported always completing a median of 8 out of 28 activities, with the number of activities completed declining from phase 1 through to 3. Most respondents indicated they were somewhat confident completing the implementation activities and agreed their teams would benefit from increasing their knowledge and skills to use an evidence-informed approach to implementing practice changes. Conclusions Despite viewing implementation activities as important, many teams are not consistently doing them and lack confidence, particularly in later phases of the implementation process. These findings inform where further capacity-building and supports may be needed to enable maternal-newborn nurses, other healthcare professionals, and leaders to apply implementation science to their change initiatives.

BackgroundAs part of a larger study examining the effectiveness of the Maternal Newborn Dashboard, an electronic audit and feedback system to improve maternal-newborn care practices and outcomes, the purpose of this study was to increase our understanding of factors explaining variability in performance after implementation of the Dashboard in Ontario, Canada.MethodsA collective case study. A maximum variation sampling approach was used to invite hospitals reflecting different criteria to participate in a 1-day to 2-day site visit by the research team. The visits included: (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups with healthcare providers, leaders and personnel involved in clinical change processes; (2) observations and document review. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative content analysis was used to code and categorise the data.ResultsBetween June and November 2016, we visited 14 maternal-newborn hospitals. Hospitals were grouped into four quadrants based on their key indicator performance and level of engagement with the Dashboard. Findings revealed four overarching themes that contribute to the varying success of sites in achieving practice change on the Dashboard key performance indicators, namely, interdisciplinary collaboration and accountability, application of formal change strategies, team trust and use of evidence and data, as well as alignment with organisational priorities and support.ConclusionThe diversity of facilitators and barriers across the 14 hospitals highlights the need to go beyond a ‘one size fits all’ approach when implementing audit and feedback systems. Future work to identify tools to assess barriers to practice change and to evaluate the effects of cointerventions to optimise audit and feedback systems for clinical practice change is needed.

Background MORE OB (Managing Obstetrical Risk Efficiently) is a patient safety program for health care providers and administrators in hospital obstetric units. MORE OB has been implemented widely in Canada and gradually spread to the United States. The main goal of MORE OB is to build a patient safety culture and improve clinical outcomes. In 2013, 26 Ontario hospitals voluntarily accepted provincial funding to participate in MORE OB . The purpose of our study was to assess the effect of MORE OB on participant knowledge, organizational culture, and experiences implementing and participating in the program at these 26 Ontario hospitals. Methods A convergent parallel mixed-methods study in Ontario, Canada, with MORE OB participants from 26 hospitals. The quantitative component used a descriptive pre-post repeated measures design to assess participant knowledge and perception of culture, administered pre-MORE OB and after each of the three MORE OB modules. Changes in mean scores were assessed using mixed-effects regression. The qualitative component used a qualitative descriptive design with individual semi-structured interviews. We used content analysis to code, categorize, and thematically describe data. A convergent parallel design was used to triangulate findings from data sources. Results 308 participants completed the knowledge test, and 329 completed the culture assessment at all four time points. Between baseline and post-Module 3, statistically significant increases on both scores were observed, with an increase of 7.9% (95% CI: 7.1 to 8.8) on the knowledge test and an increase of 0.45 (on a scale of 1–5, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.52) on the culture assessment. Interview participants ( n  = 15) described improvements in knowledge, interprofessional communication, ability to provide safe care, and confidence in skills. Facilitators and barriers to program implementation and sustainability were identified. Conclusions Participants were satisfied with their participation in the MORE OB program and perceived that it increased health care provider knowledge and confidence, improved safety for patients, and improved communication between team members. Additionally, mean scores on knowledge tests for obstetric content and culture assessment improved. The MORE OB program can help organizations and individuals improve care by concentrating on the human and organizational aspects of patient safety. Further work to improve program implementation and sustainability is required.