Skip to main content

Table 1 Definition of implementation outcomes and their assessment

From: Implementation of a first-trimester prognostic model to improve screening for gestational diabetes mellitus

Outcome

Definition

Indicator

OHP survey itema

Adoption

The initial decision to implement the prognostic model

The number of centres that started with the implementation of the prognostic model, divided by the total number of centres agreed to participate.

CP3

Acceptability

The perception among obstetric healthcare professionals that the prognostic model is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory

NA

I1, I2, I4, U8, U17, C1, C3, C4, RM1–3

Appropriateness

The perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the prognostic model for a) midwifery practices, hospitals, obstetric healthcare professionals, pregnant women, or b) to improve selective screening for GDM

The number of pregnant women who appreciated information about their risk for GDM and how to decrease it, divided by the total number of women who responded to the questionnaireb

I7, U9, U10–12, GN1, C2, CP2, CA3

Feasibility

The extent to which the prognostic model can be successfully used or carried out within the midwifery practice or hospital

NA

I5, U13, U16, O19, O21, O23–27, GN2, CP1, CA1, CA2, CA4–7, RM5

Fidelity

The degree to which the prognostic model was implemented as it was described in the original protocol

Fidelity: the number of pregnant women who received the correct care pathway, divided by the total number of women in the study population.c Safety: the number of women with GDM that were selectively tested for GDM, divided by the total number of women with GDM.c Efficiency: the number of women without GDM that were not selectively tested for GDM, divided by the total number of women without GDM.c

NA

Penetration

The integration of the prognostic model in the midwifery practices and hospitals

The number of pregnant women for whom the prognostic models was filled out, divided by all pregnant women.c The number of pregnant women who resported to have received information about their risk for GDM, divided by the total number of women who responded to the questionnaireb

U14, U15

Sustainability

The extent to which the use of the prognostic model is maintained within a midwifery practice or hospital

The number of centres that continued using the prognostic model after the study period, divided by the total number of centres that participated in the studyd

I6, O20, O28, GN3, CP4, RM4, E1–5.

  1. OHP Obstetric healthcare professional, GDM Gestational diabetes mellitus, NoMAD Normalization MeAsure Development Instrument [19,20,21], MIDI Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations instrument [22], NA Not applicable
  2. aFull items are provided in supporting table 1
  3. bNumbers derived from the questionnaire send to pregnant women
  4. cExtracted from the standardised case report forms and displayed in Fig. 3
  5. dCentres were asked by e-mail whether they had continued using the prognostic model after the study period
Back to article page

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us