Cultural Sensitivity in Interventions Aiming to Reduce or Prevent Intimate Partner Violence During Pregnancy: A Scoping Review.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) around the time of pregnancy is a recognized global health problem. Ethnic minorities and immigrant pregnant women experiencing IPV require culturally responsive health services. The aim of this scoping review was to identify aspects of cultural sensitivity in interventions to prevent or reduce IPV among ethnic minorities and immigrant pregnant women in high-income countries. Eight databases were searched in November 2019. Any type of scientific research, quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies regarding interventions against IPV among pregnant women were considered for inclusion. Resnicow et al.'s definition of cultural sensitivity was used to identify aspects of cultural sensitivity. Ten papers relating to nine interventions/studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies, which included randomized controlled trials, a mixed methods study, a program evaluation, and a longitudinal study, were conducted in Australia, Belgium, Norway, and the United States. Aspects of surface cultural sensitivity, including the translation of intervention content into the language of the target group(s) and the involvement of bilingual staff to recruit participants, were identified in eight studies. Deep structure aspects of cultural sensitivity were identified in one study, where the intervention content was pretested among the target group(s). Results that could be related to the culture-sensitive adaptions included successful recruitment of the target population. Three studies were planning to investigate women's experiences of interventions, but no publications were yet available. This scoping review provides evidence that culturally sensitive interventions to reduce or prevent IPV among immigrant pregnant women are limited in number and detail.

Intermittent auscultation fetal monitoring during labour: A systematic scoping review to identify methods, effects, and accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent auscultation (IA) is the technique of listening to and counting the fetal heart rate (FHR) for short periods during active labour and continuous cardiotocography (CTC) implies FHR monitoring for longer periods. Although the evidence suggests that IA is the best way to monitor healthy women at low risk of complications, there is no scientific evidence for the ideal device, timing, frequency and duration for IA. We aimed to give an overview of the field, identify and describe methods and practices for performing IA, map the evidence and accuracy for different methods of IA, and identify research gaps. METHODS: We conducted a systematic scoping review following the Joanna Briggs methodology. Medline, EMBASE, Cinahl, Maternity & Infant Care, Cochrane Library, SveMed+, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs and African Journals Online were searched for publications up to January 2019. We did hand searches in relevant articles and databases. Studies from all countries, international guidelines and national guidelines from Denmark, United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand, Australia, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway were included. We did quality assessment of the guidelines according to the AGREEMENT tool. We performed a meta-analysis assessing the effects of IA with a Doppler device vs. Pinard device using methods described in The Cochrane Handbook, and we performed an overall assessment of the summary of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: The searches generated 6408 hits of which 26 studies and 11 guidelines were included in the review. The studies described slightly different techniques for performing IA, and some did not provide detailed descriptions. Few of the studies provided details of normal and abnormal IA findings. All 11 guidelines recommended IA for low risk women, although they had slightly different recommendations on the frequency, timing, and duration for IA, and the FHR characteristics that should be observed. Four of the included studies, comprising 8436 women and their babies, were randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effect of IA with a Doppler device vs. a Pinard device. Abnormal FHRs were detected more often using the Doppler device than in those using the Pinard device (risk ratio 1.77; 95% confidence interval 1.29-2.43). There were no significant differences in any of the other maternal or neonatal outcomes. Four studies assessed the accuracy of IA findings. Normal FHR was easiest to identify correctly, whereas identifying periodic FHR patterns such as decelerations and saltatory patterns were more difficult. CONCLUSION: Although IA is the recommended method, no trials have been published that evaluate protocols on how to perform it. Nor has any study assessed interrater agreements regarding interpretations of IA findings, and few have assessed to what degree clinicians can describe FHR patterns detected by IA. We found no evidence to recommend Doppler device instead of the Pinard for IA, or vice versa.