Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Original research
Interventions to improve quantitative measures of parent satisfaction in neonatal care: a systematic review
  1. Susanna Sakonidou1,
  2. Izabela Andrzejewska1,
  3. James Webbe1,
  4. Neena Modi1,
  5. Derek Bell2,
  6. Chris Gale1
  1. 1Neonatal Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
  2. 2NIHR CLAHRC for Northwest London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Susanna Sakonidou; s.sakonidou{at}imperial.ac.uk; s.sakonidou{at}doctors.org.uk

Abstract

Objective Interventions improving parent satisfaction can reduce parent stress, may improve parent-infant bonding and infant outcomes. Our objective was to systematically review neonatal interventions relating to parents of infants of all gestations where an outcome was parent satisfaction.

Methods We searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, HMIC, Maternity and Infant Care between 1 January 1946 and 1 October 2017. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials (RCT), cohort studies and other non-randomised studies if participants were parents of infants receiving neonatal care, interventions were implemented in neonatal units (of any care level) and ≥1 quantitative outcome of parent satisfaction was measured. Included studies were limited to the English language only. We extracted study characteristics, interventions, outcomes and parent involvement in intervention design. Included studies were not sufficiently homogenous to enable quantitative synthesis. We assessed quality with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (randomised) and the ROBINS-I tool (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) (non-randomised studies).

Results We identified 32 studies with satisfaction measures from over 2800 parents and grouped interventions into 5 themes. Most studies were non-randomised involving preterm infants. Parent satisfaction was measured by 334 different questions in 29 questionnaires (only 6/29 fully validated). 18/32 studies reported higher parent satisfaction in the intervention group. The intervention theme with most studies reporting higher satisfaction was parent involvement (10/14). Five (5/32) studies reported involving parents in intervention design. All studies had high risk of bias.

Conclusions Many interventions, commonly relating to parent involvement, are reported to improve parent satisfaction. Inconsistency in satisfaction measurements and high risk of bias makes this low-quality evidence. Standardised, validated parent satisfaction measures are needed, as well as higher quality trials of parent experience involving parents in intervention design.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42017072388.

  • neonatology
  • outcomes research
  • patient perspective

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @DrCGale

  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was first published. Provenance and peer review statement has been corrected.

  • Contributors SS and CG conceived this systematic review. The protocol was created by SS and CG. Searches were performed by SS and IA. All search results were reviewed by SS and JW. Coding was completed by SS and JW. Data analysis was completed by SS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SS; SS, CG and JW edited and reviewed the manuscript. All authors approved the manuscript. This article presents independent research supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

  • Funding This work is sponsored by Imperial College London and supported by a peer-reviewed National Institute of Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship, awarded to SS (DRF-2017-10-172).

  • Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

  • Competing interests SS has received research grants from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), the NIHR CLAHRC NWL, Rosetrees Trust and CW+ charity. NM is Director of the Neonatal Data Analysis Unit at Imperial College London. In the last 5 years, NM has served on the Board of Trustees of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, David Harvey Trust, Medical Women’s Federation and Medact; and is a member of the Nestle Scientific Advisory Board. NM has received research grants from the British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, National Institute of Health Research, Westminster Research Fund, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health and Care Northwest London, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership, Bliss, Prolacta Life Sciences, Chiesi, Shire and HCA International; travel and accommodation expenses from Nutricia, Prolacta, Nestle and Chiesi; honoraria from Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Alexion Pharmaceuticals for contributions to expert advisory boards and Chiesi for contributing to a lecture programme. CG is funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) through a Clinician Scientist Fellowship award. He has received support from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals to attend an educational conference; in the past 5 years, he has been investigator on received research grants from Medical Research Council, National Institute of Health Research, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Department of Health in England, Mason Medical Research Foundation, Westminster Medical School Research Trust and Chiesi Pharmaceuticals.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.