↓ Skip to main content

Impacts of online and group perinatal education: a mixed methods study protocol for the optimization of perinatal health services

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impacts of online and group perinatal education: a mixed methods study protocol for the optimization of perinatal health services
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3204-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geneviève Roch, Roxane Borgès Da Silva, Francine de Montigny, Holly O. Witteman, Tamarha Pierce, Sonia Semenic, Julie Poissant, André-Anne Parent, Deena White, Nils Chaillet, Carl-Ardy Dubois, Mathieu Ouimet, Geneviève Lapointe, Stéphane Turcotte, Alexandre Prud’homme, Geneviève Painchaud Guérard, Marie-Pierre Gagnon

Abstract

Prenatal education is a core component of perinatal care and services provided by health institutions. Whereas group prenatal education is the most common educational model, some health institutions have opted to implement online prenatal education to address accessibility issues as well as the evolving needs of future parents. Various studies have shown that prenatal education can be effective in acquisition of knowledge on labour and delivery, reducing psychological distress and maximising father's involvement. However, these results may depend on educational material, organization, format and content. Furthermore, the effectiveness of online prenatal education compared to group prenatal education remains unclear in the literature. This project aims to evaluate the impacts of group prenatal education and online prenatal education on health determinants and users' health status, as well as on networks of perinatal educational services maintained with community-based partners. This multipronged mixed methods study uses a collaborative research approach to integrate and mobilize knowledge throughout the process. It consists of: 1) a prospective cohort study with quantitative data collection and qualitative interviews with future and new parents; and 2) a multiple case study integrating documentary sources and interviews with stakeholders involved in the implementation of perinatal information service networks and collaborations with community partners. Perinatal health indicators and determinants will be compared between prenatal education groups (group prenatal education and online prenatal education) and standard care without these prenatal education services (control group). This study will provide knowledge about the impact of online prenatal education as a new technological service delivery model compared to traditional group prenatal education. Indicators related to the complementarity of these interventions and those available in community settings will refine our understanding of regional perinatal services networks. Results will assist decision-making regarding service organization and delivery models of prenatal education services. Version 1 (February 9 2018).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 12 32%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 14 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 32%
Psychology 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,974,199
of 13,693,516 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,977
of 4,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,369
of 271,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,693,516 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them