An interprofessional model of care for oral health during pregnancy.
Saved in:
| Title: | An interprofessional model of care for oral health during pregnancy. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Adeniyi, A, Donnelly, L, Janssen, P, Jevitt, C, Von Bergmann, Hc, Brondani, M |
| Source: | Journal of Interprofessional Care. Jul/Aug2025, Vol. 39 Issue 4, p627-635. 9p. |
| Subjects: | Nurses, Interprofessional relations, Dental hygienists, Obstetricians, Maternity nursing, Qualitative research, Research funding, Midwives, Interviewing, Physicians' attitudes, Pregnant women, Descriptive statistics, Judgment sampling, Patient advocacy, Prenatal care, Dentists, Thematic analysis, Patient-centered care, Attitudes of medical personnel, Nurses' attitudes, Research methodology, Communication, College teacher attitudes, Comparative studies, Data analysis software, Oral health, Health care teams, Preventive health services, Integrated health care delivery, Patients' attitudes, Dentists' attitudes, Pregnancy |
| Geographic Terms: | British Columbia |
| Abstract: | The study aim was to appraise the relevance and appropriateness of an interprofessional prenatal oral care model among pregnant women and healthcare providers in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Audio-recorded semi-structured interviews with 39 purposefully selected participants (13 pregnant women and 26 healthcare professionals) were used qualitatively to appraise relevance of an existing model. The existing model emphasizes communication and collaboration among multiple health providers for the delivery of integrated prenatal oral care. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach and N-Vivo® software. During the first round of interviews, most participants considered the existing model as simple and well-defined but not fully relevant to the BC context. The participants suggested revisions to Steven's model to incorporate facilitators of integrated care, including interprofessional education, oral health funding, and advocacy for oral healthcare. Participants suggested a different graphical portrayal for the revised model; an implementation guide was also suggested. A revised model based on participants' feedback, was shared with 14 of the initial participants during secondary interviews. Further evaluation of the appropriateness of the revised model is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Interprofessional Care is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The study aim was to appraise the relevance and appropriateness of an interprofessional prenatal oral care model among pregnant women and healthcare providers in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Audio-recorded semi-structured interviews with 39 purposefully selected participants (13 pregnant women and 26 healthcare professionals) were used qualitatively to appraise relevance of an existing model. The existing model emphasizes communication and collaboration among multiple health providers for the delivery of integrated prenatal oral care. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach and N-Vivo® software. During the first round of interviews, most participants considered the existing model as simple and well-defined but not fully relevant to the BC context. The participants suggested revisions to Steven's model to incorporate facilitators of integrated care, including interprofessional education, oral health funding, and advocacy for oral healthcare. Participants suggested a different graphical portrayal for the revised model; an implementation guide was also suggested. A revised model based on participants' feedback, was shared with 14 of the initial participants during secondary interviews. Further evaluation of the appropriateness of the revised model is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13561820 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/13561820.2021.2017417 |
