Survey of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Management Patterns of Atlanta-Area Obstetricians Regarding Stillbirth
Abstract
Objective Existing surveillance data on fetal death certificates are suboptimal for conducting reliable epidemiologic studies on stillbirth. The objective of this survey was to better understand the factors potentially affecting the quality of data collected on stillbirths among a defined population. Methods A survey was mailed to all physicians (n = 661) listed in the July 2007 version of the American Medical Association master file with a primary specialty of obstetrics/gynecology and a mailing address within five counties in metropolitan Atlanta. Results A total of 487 physicians met eligibility criteria: 279 returned the survey, 179 did not return the survey, and 29 were returned as unable to locate. Two respondents returned incomplete surveys, leaving 277 participants for the final analysis. Respondents reported seeing an average of six stillbirths per year. A cause of death was not identified in two thirds of cases. Almost half (46.8%) of participants responded that 20 weeks was the minimum gestational age defining stillbirth, whereas 33.1% responded that it was 24 weeks. A majority (92.6%) responded that a standardized definition for stillbirth should be adopted. More than 80% agreed that a comprehensive evaluation was important to identify a cause of death, and 91.9% agreed that the use of a standardized protocol for post-mortem stillbirth evaluation would be helpful. A majority also agreed that ongoing surveillance of stillbirths and a national research agenda on causes of stillbirth are important. Conclusion Comprehensive educational and awareness efforts for obstetricians and other related health care personnel are needed to further improve on the data collected for surveillance purposes on stillbirth.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A big percentage of perinatal losses are overlooked or not declared due to deficient or ineffective data collection systems.
“However, according with some authors (Cassidy, 2018; Duke et al., 2010; Sisay et al., 2014), a big percentage of perinatal losses are overlooked or not declared due to deficient or ineffective data collection systems.”
From Integrative Review of Emotional Care Following Perinatal Loss (2021) · cites this paper as Duke et al., 2010
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 20 · Cited by 10
- Authors
- Duke, W., Shin, M., Correa, A., & Alverson, C. J.
- Affiliations
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
- Corresponding author
- Duke, Wes
- Venue
- Women's Health Issues
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 366-370
- ISSN
- 1049-3867 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2068976262
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Women s Health Issues (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
- Keywords
- stillbirth, obstetricians, stillbirth surveillance, fetal death certificates, stillbirth definition, gestational age, causes of stillbirth, physician knowledge and attitudes, Atlanta
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cause of Death, Female, Georgia, Gynecology, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Obstetrics, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Quality of Health Care, Risk Factors, Urban Population, Stillbirth
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review