Exploring the barriers and enablers experienced by people with Cystic Fibrosis and their healthcare professionals in accessing, utilising and delivering maternity and Cystic Fibrosis care during the pre-conception to post-partum period: A mixed methods systematic review protocol.

Jen Balfe; Jennifer Donnelly; Sarah Tecklenborg; Aisling Walsh

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13500.1

Home Browse Exploring the barriers and enablers experienced by people with Cystic...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Exploring the barriers and enablers experienced by people with Cystic Fibrosis and their healthcare professionals in accessing, utilising and delivering maternity and Cystic Fibrosis care during the pre-conception to post-partum period: A mixed methods systematic review protocol.

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Jen Balfe ¹, Jennifer Donnelly^1-4, Sarah Tecklenborg⁵, Aisling Walsh¹

PUBLISHED 23 Mar 2022

Author details Author details

¹ RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
² Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
³ Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
⁴ University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
⁵ Cystic Fibrosis Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

Jen Balfe
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Jennifer Donnelly
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Sarah Tecklenborg
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Aisling Walsh
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Maternal and Child Health collection.

Abstract

Background
Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive inherited multi-system disease that primarily affects the lungs and digestive system. New drug therapies and treatments are improving the lives of many people with CF. With improved life expectancy and increased quality of life, many people with CF are now contemplating parenthood and becoming pregnant, an aspiration that decades ago was almost unheard of. Given this quickly evolving and more positive health landscape, it is vital to understand how people with CF experience the care they receive whilst accessing and utilising fertility and maternity services. It is also important to explore the experiences of healthcare professionals involved in providing care during this period. The overall aim of the mixed-methods systematic review will be to explore the barriers and enablers experienced by people with CF and the healthcare professionals involved in their care in the pre-conception to post-partum period.
Methods
The proposed review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews. A systematic search of Medline (Ebsco), Cinahl, Embase, APA PsychINFO and Cochrane Library from inception to February 2022 will be conducted. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies pertaining to the experience of pre-conception to post-partum care for people with CF and their healthcare professionals will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements being resolved by a third reviewer.
Conclusion
This review will help to determine the potential barriers and facilitators experienced by people with Cystic Fibrosis and the health care professionals involved in their care during the pre-conception to post-partum period. The results will be of benefit specifically to the CF population and their healthcare providers when planning further studies in the area of fertility and pregnancy for this population and when delivering care.

Keywords

Cystic Fibrosis, pregnancy, maternity, barriers, enablers, healthcare professionals, women with Cystic Fibrosis, systematic review.

Corresponding author: Jen Balfe

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This review has been funded by the Irish Research Council as part of the Enterprise Partnership Scheme 2021 and is co-funded by Cystic Fibrosis Ireland.

This protocol has been developed with support from Cystic Fibrosis Ireland (CFI) and Dr Sarah Tecklenborg, senior research and policy officer with CFI is one of the authors.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 Balfe J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Balfe J, Donnelly J, Tecklenborg S and Walsh A. Exploring the barriers and enablers experienced by people with Cystic Fibrosis and their healthcare professionals in accessing, utilising and delivering maternity and Cystic Fibrosis care during the pre-conception to post-partum period: A mixed methods systematic review protocol. [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2022, 5:22 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13500.1) First published: 23 Mar 2022, 5:22 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13500.1) Latest published: 28 Apr 2023, 5:22 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13500.2)

Introduction

Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive, inherited multi-system disease that primarily affects the lungs and digestive system. Once considered a disease of childhood, improved therapies and better management has led to a changed demographic in the CF population, and many adults with CF are now experiencing improved quality and quantity of life^1,2.

The first reported incident of pregnancy in a person with Cystic Fibrosis (CF) was in 1960³. The deterioration of the patient two months before delivery and her death soon after, established pregnancy as an undesirable and dangerous path for patients with CF. At a time where treatment options were limited and CF was primarily seen as a paediatric illness, the concept of pregnancy within this context as being an unfavourable complication is unsurprising. Much of the discourse in the following decades has focused on the maternal outcomes in pregnancies of people with CF (pwCF), the potential risks and complications of pregnancy in CF as well as guidelines for the management of patients with CF in pregnancy^4–6.

With improved care and the advent of Cystic Fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapies, the landscape for many pwCF has changed dramatically, meaning that pregnancy and parenthood are now achievable aspirations. In a survey of 188 young women with CF in the US, seventy-eight percent expressed a desire to have children in the future⁷. This is in fact evidenced in recent years as many countries have seen increases in the numbers of pregnancies being recorded in international CF registries^1,2.

Recent data suggest that pregnancy is now a considered choice for women with CF and they give consideration to the multi-factorial impacts the decision to conceive may have on their health status and wellbeing⁸, even before addressing it with their healthcare providers⁹. It is therefore essential to assess how this relatively recent phenomenon is experienced by people with CF and the healthcare professionals involved in their care in order to best provide care in the future.

Much of the literature that exists on pregnancy and CF is weighted in terms of outcomes and guidelines and is focused on the physiological and medical implications that CF has on maternal and foetal outcomes, or in terms of the effects pregnancy has on CF baseline parameters - such as pulmonary function^5,6,10–12. While these studies often highlight how pregnancy in the main is well tolerated by pwCF, analysis of the experience of pregnancy by this population needs further investigation.

With a changing reality, more people with CF are navigating this new terrain and desire open communication around issues of sexual and reproductive health and pregnancy decision making in CF. A study on contraceptive options in CF, notes the high rates of unintended pregnancy in women with CF¹³, and another on reproductive health in CF asserts the need for improved communication as means of facilitating better decision making pre-conception¹⁴. Hughan postulates that ‘Reproductive health decision-making tools should be explored as a way to enhance patient-provider communication surrounding reproductive health topics’¹⁵. A number of studies highlight how women with CF seek up to date and reliable information when planning a pregnancy or whilst pregnant^10,11 especially in relation to the management and potential contra indications of their medications as well as advice on treatments and adherence¹⁶.

The importance of collaborative care between CF and high-risk obstetrical care teams was highlighted in a recent review¹⁷. The lack of detailed information, collected by the large CF registries on delivery and foetal outcomes was also highlighted in this study¹⁷.

Analysing and synthesising the lived and evolving experience of pwCF and their healthcare professionals of pre-conception to post-partum care and identifying the barriers both groups encounter during this period will help to elucidate areas which require attention and future planning. Identifying enablers that add to the experience in a positive and practical way will also add to the growing bank of recommendations for health service provision in the future¹⁸. Comparing the experiences of both groups will also serve to highlight any gaps that may exist in how each group experiences accessing, utilising or delivering care in the pre-conception to post-partum period.

Review question

The mixed methods systematic review will seek to answer what are the barriers and enablers encountered by people with CF and the healthcare professionals involved in their care in accessing, utilising and delivering pre-conception, antenatal, intra-partum and post-partum care (pre-conception to post-partum care)? This will be addressed through two objectives; i) to explore the experiences of people with Cystic Fibrosis while accessing and utilising pre-conception to post-partum care; ii) to explore the experiences of healthcare professionals involved in providing fertility, obstetric and Cystic Fibrosis care to people with CF in the pre-conception to post-partum period.

Inclusion criteria

Population

The review will consider studies that include people with CF who have experienced any or all stages of maternity care which we define as including, pre-conception, antenatal, intra-partum and post-partum care. The review will also consider studies that include healthcare professionals involved in delivering care, be that CF specific care or fertility and obstetric care to people with CF during this time.

Phenomena of interest

The experience under study for this review will be that of fertility, pregnancy, delivery and postnatal care in people with Cystic Fibrosis. The review will consider studies that investigate the pre-conception experience to post-partum experience for people with CF and health professionals that provide care to people with CF during this time.

Barriers will be identified as any perceived or experienced construct, attitude, or challenge, either systemically, internally or otherwise that impedes the experience of accessing, utilising or delivering, pre-conception to post-partum care. Enablers will be identified as any perceived or experienced facilitator of positive experience in accessing, utilising or delivering pre-partum to post-partum care. Approaching the concepts of barriers and enablers through a macro, mesa and micro lens will also enable the identification of challenges and facilitators as they arise at different levels. This strategy was employed by a study in Australia which sought to identify barriers and enablers which affected extended scopes of practice in rural Australia in relation to nurse practitioners. As such this lens may prove a suitable approach in identifying barriers and enablers as experienced by pwCF and healthcare professionals (HCPs)¹⁹.

Context

Given the incidence of pregnancy is rising in this population internationally^1,2, all geographical locations and settings will be considered. Settings may include but are not limited to; hospitals, clinics, community care or primary healthcare settings. Settings will be included if they are identified as providing fertility, obstetric, maternity or Cystic Fibrosis care to pwCF in the pre-conception to post-partum period.

Types of studies

The review will consider quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies (if it is possible to clearly extract the quantitative and qualitative components of such studies).

Qualitative studies will include designs such as descriptive qualitative design, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, participatory and action research, and feminist research. This will include interviews, focus group discussions, ethnographic data and journaling that explore the experiences of pwCF and their HCPs during the pre-conception to post-partum period.

Quantitative studies will include observational studies (e.g. cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and case-control studies). The quantitative component of this review will consider studies that include questionnaires that are aimed at ascertaining the experience of pwCF or HCPs in accessing, utilising or providing care during the pre-conception to post-partum period. Such studies may report sociodemographic data which may help to provide a broader picture about how sociodemographic factors can influence the experience of accessing, utilising or delivering care in pwCF during the pre-conception to post-partum period.

The qualitative and quantitative components of this review will consider studies that investigate how the barriers and enablers perceived or encountered by people with CF and their healthcare professionals during the pre-conception to post-partum period, contribute to their experience of accessing, utilising and delivering care.

To correspond with the first reporting of a case of pregnancy in a person with CF in 1960, studies published from this year to the present will be included.

Methods

The review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews, following a convergent integrated approach²⁰. This approach suggests that when a review question is answerable by both quantitative and qualitative data that ‘an integrated approach to synthesis is undertaken’ and data transformation should be employed²⁰.

Quantitative and qualitative data which presents or explores the experiences of pwCF and healthcare professionals in accessing, utilising and delivering fertility, maternity and CF care during the pre-conception to post-partum period will be examined in order to ascertain any perceived or experienced barriers and enablers relating to the above mentioned period.

A preliminary search of Medline and Cinahl has been undertaken and to the best of our knowledge no existing or ongoing mixed method or individual systematic reviews on the topic have been identified.

Search strategy and Information Sources

An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL will be undertaken to identify articles on the topic and to inform the search strategy. A librarian from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland has assisted in the development of the search strategy. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles will be used to develop a full search strategy for Medline, Cinahl, Embase, APA PsycInfo and Cochrane Library. The search strategy, including all identified keywords, and index terms relating to barriers and enablers in accessing, utilising and delivering pre-conception to post-partum care for pwCF will be adapted for each included information source. The reference list of all studies selected for critical appraisal will be screened for additional studies.

Study selection

Following the search, all identified citations will be loaded into EndNote X9 and duplicates removed. Titles and abstracts will then be screened by two independent reviewers for assessment against the inclusion criteria for the review using Covidence software. Potentially relevant studies will be retrieved in full and their citation details imported into Covidence. The full text of selected citations will be assessed against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Reasons for exclusion of full text studies that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported in the systematic review. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers at each stage of the study selection process will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer. The results of the search will be reported in full in the final report and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram²¹.

Assessment of methodological quality

Quantitative studies (and the quantitative component of mixed methods studies) selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardised critical appraisal instruments from JBI²².

Qualitative studies (and the qualitative component of mixed methods studies) selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using the standardised critical appraisal instrument from JBI²³.

Authors of papers will be contacted to request missing or extra data for clarification purposes, where required. If disagreements arise between the reviewers, they will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer. To capture the experience of both people with CF and HCPs, all studies, regardless of the results of their methodological quality, will undergo data extraction and synthesis (where possible). The results of the critical appraisal will be reported in narrative form and in a table.

Data extraction

Quantitative and qualitative data will be extracted from studies included in the review by two independent reviewers, using Covidence software.

The data extracted will include details on both populations identified in the study. In the case of HCPs, details on the specific area of care they are associated with, i.e. CF specific care or obstetric care etc. Further data on the specific role within the care team will also be identified, i.e. Consultant, CF Nurse, Midwife, Psychologist etc. In terms of the data regarding pwCF, details on age, gender and service accessed or utilised will be included where available. Details on study methods and design, and results relating to experience of accessing/utilising or providing pre-conception to post-partum care will be recorded. Details on barriers/enablers as experienced/perceived by pwCF or HCPs will also be recorded. Details on specific settings will be noted, including but not limited to; fertility clinic, maternity hospital, primary care centre, CF centre, and acute hospital. Details on the particular stage of care (pre-conception, ante-natal, intra- partum and postpartum), and geographical location will also be recorded.

Data extracted from quantitative studies will include any data-based outcomes relating to the experience of pwCF and the HCPs involved in the care of pwCF during the specified period. Qualitative data will be assessed and categorised by theme and sub-theme relating to the review question and a quotation from the direct quote or observation from the study in question will be provided. The sample data extraction chart is included and will be refined following piloting in 2022.

Data synthesis and integration

The review will follow a convergent integrated approach according to the JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews using JBI SUMARI²⁰.

Once data extraction is complete the quantitative data will be transformed into ‘qualitised’ data, whereby textual descriptions and narrative interpretation will be used to transform the quantitative data. This will enable integration with data extracted from the qualitative studies and the qualitative components of mixed methods studies²⁰. This particular approach involves gathering the qualitised data with the qualitative data. This assembled data will then be categorised and pooled together to create a set of integrated findings.

Study status

At the time of publication of this mixed method systematic review protocol, search terms have been piloted and are currently being refined. Full database searches will be run in February 2022.

Discussion

The changing landscape of maternal health in the context of Cystic Fibrosis care is worthy of exploration. Though now not an uncommon experience as once it was, it is vital that we understand how the experience of accessing, utilising and delivering all aspects of maternal care is experienced by pwCF and their HCPs. A systematic review of the literature pertaining to the lived experiences of pwCF and their HCPs will illuminate the current barriers and enablers as experienced by both groups and will serve to inform future policy and practice in this dynamic area. It may also illuminate experiences of barriers and facilitators experienced by patients and healthcare professionals in other similar populations as there is potentially areas of convergence between pwCF and other patient populations living with physical impairments who utilise pre-conception to post-partum care.

Patient and Public Involvement

Adults with CF who have accessed and utilised pre-conception to post-partum care and healthcare professionals with experience in delivering care to pwCF in the pre-partum to post-partum period will be involved in the interpretation and dissemination of the findings of the review. While there has been no Public and Patient Involvement in the development of this protocol, the lead author is a person with Cystic Fibrosis who has accessed and utilised pre-conception to post-partum care.

Data availability

Underlying data

No underlying data are associated with this article.

Extended data

Open Science Framework: ‘Exploring the barriers and enablers experienced by people with Cystic Fibrosis and their healthcare professionals in accessing, utilising and delivering maternity and Cystic Fibrosis care during the pre-conception to post-partum period: A mixed methods systematic review protocol.’

https://osf.io/8fr5d/?view_only=3ca6349ea7904fff9a7cccdd844585f5

This project contains the following extended data:

Sample search strategy
Draft data charting template

Reporting guidelines

Open Science Framework: PRISMA-P checklist for ‘Exploring the barriers and enablers experienced by people with Cystic Fibrosis and their healthcare professionals in accessing, utilising and delivering maternity and Cystic Fibrosis care during the pre-conception to post-partum period: A mixed methods systematic review protocol’.https://osf.io/8fr5d/?view_only=3ca6349ea7904fff9a7cccdd844585f5

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Niall O’ Brien, research librarian at RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences for his assistance in developing the search strategy.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Cystic Fibrosis foundation patient registry report. 2019. Reference Source
2. UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry Annual Data Report. 2019. Reference Source
3. Siegel B, Siegel S: Pregnancy and Delivery in a Patient with Cystic Fibrosis of the Pancreas: Report of a case. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1960; 16(4): 438–440.
4. Schechter MS, Quittner AL, Konstan MW, et al.: Long-term Effects of Pregnancy and Motherhood on Disease Outcomes of Women with Cystic Fibrosis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2013; 10(3): 213–219. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Edenborough FP, Borgo G, Knoop C, et al.: Guidelines for the management of pregnancy in women with cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2008; 7 Suppl 1: S2–S32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Gilljam M, Antoniou M, Shin J, et al.: Pregnancy in cystic fibrosis. Fetal and maternal outcome. Chest. 2000; 118(1): 85–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Kazmerski TM, Sawicki GS, Miller E, et al.: Sexual and reproductive health behaviors and experiences reported by young women with cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2018; 17(1): 57–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Traxler SA, Chavez V, Hadjiliadis D, et al.: Fertility considerations and attitudes about family planning among women with cystic fibrosis. Contraception. 2019; 100(3): 228–233. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Kalpakjian CZ, Haapala HJ, Ernst SD, et al.: Development of a new pregnancy informational and decisional needs survey for women with physical disabilities. Disabil Health J. 2021; 14(3): 101056. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Edenborough FP, Stableforth DE, Webb AK, et al.: Outcome of pregnancy in women with cystic fibrosis. Thorax. 1995; 50(2): 170–174. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Edenborough FP, Mackenzie WE, Stableforth DE: The outcome of 72 pregnancies in 55 women with cystic fibrosis in the United Kingdom 1977-1996. BJOG. 2000; 107(2): 254–261. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Jelin AC, Sharshiner R, Caughey AB: Maternal co-morbidities and neonatal outcomes associated with cystic fibrosis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 30(1): 4–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Gatiss S, Mansour D, Doe S, et al.: Provision of contraception services and advice for women with cystic fibrosis. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2009; 35(3): 157–160. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Hughan KS, Daley T, Rayas MS, et al.: Female reproductive health in cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2019; 18 Suppl 2: S95–S104. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Hailey CE, Tan JW, Dellon EP, et al.: Pursuing parenthood with cystic fibrosis: Reproductive health and parenting concerns in individuals with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2019; 54(8): 1225–1233. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Holton S, Fisher J, Button B, et al.: Childbearing concerns, information needs and preferences of women with cystic fibrosis: An online discussion group. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2019; 19: 31–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Jain R, Kazmerski TM, Zuckerwise LC, et al.: Pregnancy in cystic fibrosis: Review of the literature and expert recommendations. J Cyst Fibros. 2021; S1569-1993(21)01338-2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Cammidge SL, Duff AJA, Latchford GJ, et al.: When Women with Cystic Fibrosis Become Mothers: Psychosocial Impact and Adjustments. Pulm Med. 2016; 2016: 9458980. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Smith, T, et al.: A study of macro-, meso- and micro-barriers and enablers affecting extended scopes of practice: the case of rural nurse practitioners in Australia. BMC Nurs. 2019; 18: 14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Lizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J, et al.: Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. Publisher Full Text
21. Page MJ, McKenzie ME, Bossuyt PM, et al.: Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 134: 103–112. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, et al.: Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. Publisher Full Text
23. Lockwood C, Porrit K, Munn Z, et al.: Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. InAromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Mar 2022

Author details Author details

Jen Balfe
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Jennifer Donnelly
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Sarah Tecklenborg
Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Aisling Walsh
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This review has been funded by the Irish Research Council as part of the Enterprise Partnership Scheme 2021 and is co-funded by Cystic Fibrosis Ireland.

This protocol has been developed with support from Cystic Fibrosis Ireland (CFI) and Dr Sarah Tecklenborg, senior research and policy officer with CFI is one of the authors.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 28 Apr 2023, 5:22

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13500.2

version 1

Published: 23 Mar 2022, 5:22

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13500.1

© 2022 Balfe J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

916

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Balfe J, Donnelly J, Tecklenborg S and Walsh A. Exploring the barriers and enablers experienced by people with Cystic Fibrosis and their healthcare professionals in accessing, utilising and delivering maternity and Cystic Fibrosis care during the pre-conception to post-partum period: A mixed methods systematic review protocol. [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2022, 5:22 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13500.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 23 Mar 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 25 Oct 2022

Emily M. Godfrey, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14725.r32993

The authors are presenting an important and pressing question for pwCF and the findings will likely be meaningful for investigators who wish to bolster sexual and reproductive health in CF care. They did a nice job with this protocol in terms of thinking through the PICOS question, search strategy, study selection, assessing quality, and synthesis integration. I see some issues that may arise with performing this systematic review.

I think the authors could better justify their rationale for and define their broad outcomes under barriers and enablers. They mention looking at these outcomes at macro, mesa and micro levels, but what is meant by that is unclear. It seems that if barriers include constructs, attitudes, perceived challenge that such outcomes represent more of a micro level, as opposed to something more macro, like the health system or how care is paid for?

I appreciate that the authors have patient and public involvement. I encourage participants that represent different health systems globally, as access to care differs from country to country. The authors should also be aware that there are initiatives coming from pwCF who have done work in this area and whose publications may not show up under the proposed search strategy. Here is an initiative by pwCF: https://cfreshc.org/srh-guide/

Is there an opportunity to also include reports from the grey literature (such as CF Roundtable) – pwCF-driven newsletter whereby pwCF report their experiences (with stories over the past year that specifically include SRH stories) that may be enlightening in terms of fully understanding the barriers and enablers to care in this arena?

Sufian S, Mentch L and Godfrey EM. Women with CF are Helping Guide Reproductive and Sexual Health Research. CF Roundtable: A newsletter for adults who have Cystic Fibrosis, Summer 2017; 27(3): 16-17, 28
Pam, M. What is a family? Why does it matter? CF Roundtable: A newsletter for adults who have Cystic Fibrosis, Summer 2020; 30(3):10-11

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Sexual and reproductive health in cystic fibrosis, contraception abortion, patient engagement methods, systematic reviews

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 28 Apr 2023

Jen Balfe, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

28 Apr 2023

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and ... Continue reading Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and advice in our revised manuscript.

1) Thank you for highlighting any lack of clarity here in terms of the outcomes relating to barriers and enablers. The authors were informed by the approach of Smith et al., (2019) who, although focusing on the Health Care Professional perspective provide an adaptable and employable set of definitions for the three stages that will be addressed in this study. Their definitions and our intent to adapt them accordingly for our study is outlined now on page 5 paragraph 4.

2) The authors are aware of the excellent and collaborative initiatives by CFRESHC and others and considered at the early stages of the protocol development including such resources.

From an initial scoping review, the lack of peer reviewed articles on experience in comparison to the amount of peer reviewed articles on outcomes and guidelines, highlighted the need to conduct this review.

This review is one part of a larger research project which was co-funded by the Irish Research Council and Cystic Fibrosis Ireland. Another arm of the project will involve an empirical study exploring the experience of pre-conception to post-partum care for pwCF and the HCPs involved in their care in Ireland.

To date the lead author and lead researcher has established an expert panel including pwCF from Ireland to inform the mixed-methods study from the protocol stage. Public and Patient Involvement(PPI) will be embedded in the study from protocol development, interview and survey guides, interpretation of findings through to dissemination stages.

This information is now included in the section referring to Public and Patient Involvement on page 9.
In order to ensure that the scope of the review was not too broad as to make it unachievable within the time frame to feed into the empirical study, it was decided that the primary focus would be on peer reviewed empirical studies. When disseminating the results of the findings of the review, the authors will ensure they share their findings with the global CF community through social media and publications/presentations.

3) As outlined above it was felt that it was important to assess the peer reviewed and empirical literature first so as to establish the context of fertility and pregnancy in CF in this sphere. Following the JBI approach we will use critical appraisal tools to assess the current literature pertaining to the topic.

The authors agree that an exploration of grey literature and its potential to illuminate barriers and enablers as considered in this area is a worthwhile future study.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and advice in our revised manuscript.

1) Thank you for highlighting any lack of clarity here in terms of the outcomes relating to barriers and enablers. The authors were informed by the approach of Smith et al., (2019) who, although focusing on the Health Care Professional perspective provide an adaptable and employable set of definitions for the three stages that will be addressed in this study. Their definitions and our intent to adapt them accordingly for our study is outlined now on page 5 paragraph 4.

2) The authors are aware of the excellent and collaborative initiatives by CFRESHC and others and considered at the early stages of the protocol development including such resources.

From an initial scoping review, the lack of peer reviewed articles on experience in comparison to the amount of peer reviewed articles on outcomes and guidelines, highlighted the need to conduct this review.

This review is one part of a larger research project which was co-funded by the Irish Research Council and Cystic Fibrosis Ireland. Another arm of the project will involve an empirical study exploring the experience of pre-conception to post-partum care for pwCF and the HCPs involved in their care in Ireland.

To date the lead author and lead researcher has established an expert panel including pwCF from Ireland to inform the mixed-methods study from the protocol stage. Public and Patient Involvement(PPI) will be embedded in the study from protocol development, interview and survey guides, interpretation of findings through to dissemination stages.

This information is now included in the section referring to Public and Patient Involvement on page 9.
In order to ensure that the scope of the review was not too broad as to make it unachievable within the time frame to feed into the empirical study, it was decided that the primary focus would be on peer reviewed empirical studies. When disseminating the results of the findings of the review, the authors will ensure they share their findings with the global CF community through social media and publications/presentations.

3) As outlined above it was felt that it was important to assess the peer reviewed and empirical literature first so as to establish the context of fertility and pregnancy in CF in this sphere. Following the JBI approach we will use critical appraisal tools to assess the current literature pertaining to the topic.

The authors agree that an exploration of grey literature and its potential to illuminate barriers and enablers as considered in this area is a worthwhile future study.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 28 Apr 2023

Jen Balfe, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

28 Apr 2023

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and ... Continue reading Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and advice in our revised manuscript.

1) Thank you for highlighting any lack of clarity here in terms of the outcomes relating to barriers and enablers. The authors were informed by the approach of Smith et al., (2019) who, although focusing on the Health Care Professional perspective provide an adaptable and employable set of definitions for the three stages that will be addressed in this study. Their definitions and our intent to adapt them accordingly for our study is outlined now on page 5 paragraph 4.

2) The authors are aware of the excellent and collaborative initiatives by CFRESHC and others and considered at the early stages of the protocol development including such resources.

From an initial scoping review, the lack of peer reviewed articles on experience in comparison to the amount of peer reviewed articles on outcomes and guidelines, highlighted the need to conduct this review.

This review is one part of a larger research project which was co-funded by the Irish Research Council and Cystic Fibrosis Ireland. Another arm of the project will involve an empirical study exploring the experience of pre-conception to post-partum care for pwCF and the HCPs involved in their care in Ireland.

To date the lead author and lead researcher has established an expert panel including pwCF from Ireland to inform the mixed-methods study from the protocol stage. Public and Patient Involvement(PPI) will be embedded in the study from protocol development, interview and survey guides, interpretation of findings through to dissemination stages.

This information is now included in the section referring to Public and Patient Involvement on page 9.
In order to ensure that the scope of the review was not too broad as to make it unachievable within the time frame to feed into the empirical study, it was decided that the primary focus would be on peer reviewed empirical studies. When disseminating the results of the findings of the review, the authors will ensure they share their findings with the global CF community through social media and publications/presentations.

3) As outlined above it was felt that it was important to assess the peer reviewed and empirical literature first so as to establish the context of fertility and pregnancy in CF in this sphere. Following the JBI approach we will use critical appraisal tools to assess the current literature pertaining to the topic.

The authors agree that an exploration of grey literature and its potential to illuminate barriers and enablers as considered in this area is a worthwhile future study.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and advice in our revised manuscript.

1) Thank you for highlighting any lack of clarity here in terms of the outcomes relating to barriers and enablers. The authors were informed by the approach of Smith et al., (2019) who, although focusing on the Health Care Professional perspective provide an adaptable and employable set of definitions for the three stages that will be addressed in this study. Their definitions and our intent to adapt them accordingly for our study is outlined now on page 5 paragraph 4.

2) The authors are aware of the excellent and collaborative initiatives by CFRESHC and others and considered at the early stages of the protocol development including such resources.

From an initial scoping review, the lack of peer reviewed articles on experience in comparison to the amount of peer reviewed articles on outcomes and guidelines, highlighted the need to conduct this review.

This review is one part of a larger research project which was co-funded by the Irish Research Council and Cystic Fibrosis Ireland. Another arm of the project will involve an empirical study exploring the experience of pre-conception to post-partum care for pwCF and the HCPs involved in their care in Ireland.

To date the lead author and lead researcher has established an expert panel including pwCF from Ireland to inform the mixed-methods study from the protocol stage. Public and Patient Involvement(PPI) will be embedded in the study from protocol development, interview and survey guides, interpretation of findings through to dissemination stages.

This information is now included in the section referring to Public and Patient Involvement on page 9.
In order to ensure that the scope of the review was not too broad as to make it unachievable within the time frame to feed into the empirical study, it was decided that the primary focus would be on peer reviewed empirical studies. When disseminating the results of the findings of the review, the authors will ensure they share their findings with the global CF community through social media and publications/presentations.

3) As outlined above it was felt that it was important to assess the peer reviewed and empirical literature first so as to establish the context of fertility and pregnancy in CF in this sphere. Following the JBI approach we will use critical appraisal tools to assess the current literature pertaining to the topic.

The authors agree that an exploration of grey literature and its potential to illuminate barriers and enablers as considered in this area is a worthwhile future study.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 06 Jun 2022

Lyndsay A. Alexander, School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14725.r31872

Thank you for the invitation to review this protocol.

There has been a clear rationale and need for this review presented although I have a couple of methodological questions related to the protocol for clarity:

I may have missed it but which languages will be included in this review? As international evidence will be included, will there also be all languages? if so, what is the plan for translation?
Please clarify which version of the Covidence data extraction software will be used and also provide some more detail on how the qualitative data will be assessed by theme and categorised, and how this relates to the JBI mixed methodology.
The draft data extraction chart is referred to but are there any plans for piloting to establish reliability between reviewers extracting data and also how to resolve any conflicts? how many reviewers will be involved in the synthesis?
As JBI does not have a Mixed method critical appraisal tool, can the authors clarify what JBI CA tool they are referring to for this study design?
Greater detail for the recruitment and involvement of pwCF and HCPs delivering care that will be involved in the interpretation and dissemination of the review findings are required as this could not be replicated as presented and could be considered tokenistic.
Although the protocol has been published on OSF, the draft search strategy and data extraction chart should be included as an appendix here for full transparency and peer review. I am unable to review them here due to this.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: Deputy Director, Scottish Centre for Evidence-based, Multi-professional Care: A JBI Centre of Excellence

Reviewer Expertise: methodology in evidence synthesis

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 28 Apr 2023

Jen Balfe, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

28 Apr 2023

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and ... Continue reading Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and advice in our revised manuscript.

1) Due to constraints on time and resources the review will focus only on English language studies. Given the sometimes complex and medical nature of the expected articles it was considered best not to rely on Google translate for accuracy purposes especially when quotes from participants in studies being reviewed are to be included. The JBI approach is to be as inclusive as possible and the authors recognise that not including languages will be a limitation of the study, and this will be highlighted when findings are being written up.

2) Covidence 2.0 software will be used. In keeping with the JBI approach to extracting findings, the data extraction will follow two phases. Study characteristics such as country, setting, stage of care and population will be included. To this we have added main results, evidence gaps and recommendations and this is included now on page 8, paragraph 1 under the heading Data Extraction.

In the second phase, findings will be extracted. Findings will be extracted alongside illustrations/quotes from the text that demonstrate where the finding originated. Findings will be coded, after which themes will be developed. As noted on page 8 under Data Extraction two independent reviewers will be involved in coding, with disputes being reached by consensus or with a third reviewer.

The findings and illustrations will be extracted verbatim from the paper completely unedited. Illustrations may include supporting data, fieldwork observations or verbatim words of participants.

On page 8 under ‘Data Synthesis and Integration’ the process of combining the qualitative data with the qualitized data into categories is detailed further.

3) Yes there are plans to pilot the data extraction sheet to establish reliability. A sample of five articles which have progressed to full text screening will be piloted by two reviewers. We have added this, page 8, paragraphs 2 and 3.

The lead author will review all articles and two other reviewers will sample half the texts each. The data extraction template will be completed by two reviewers. The piloted extraction sheets will be reviewed by the author and two reviewers and any conflicts will be resolved by consensus or by decision of a third reviewer. This is now added to page 8 paragraph 3.

Two authors will be involved in the synthesis of findings. Any conflicts will be involved by a consensus agreement or in consultation with a third reviewer.

4) The authors intend to use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for the critical appraisal of this study design. This is now included in the section ‘Assessment of methodological quality’.

5) A PPI panel of pwCF and HCPs and other stakeholders will be consulted in the interpretation of the findings. CF Ireland will use their social media accounts to raise awareness and invite discussion on the findings.

One author on this study is a HCP with expertise in delivering care to pwCF during pregnancy, the lead author is a pwCF who has been pregnant twice. A third author is the senior research and policy coordinator with the charity and advocacy organisation Cystic Fibrosis Ireland. All three authors have informally consulted with other stakeholders in the field, including pwCF, HCPS and charity representative bodies.

As a pwCF the author is deeply aware of the importance of participation and collaboration between HCPs and pwCF to further the research aims of pwCF and hopes that in doing so she will elucidate the potential for co-creation and design of research in a way that is fully participatory and engaged and moves beyond the trope of tokenism.

6) As stipulated on the HRB Open Research guidelines pertaining to supplementary material, ‘all materials associated with a manuscript are visible, FAIR, and subject to peer review, HRB Open Research does not accept supplementary material. Additional materials that support the key claims in the paper but are not absolutely required to follow the study design and analysis of the results, e.g. questionnaires, or supporting images or tables, can be included as extended data. Extended data should be deposited in an approved repository and listed as part of the data availability statement.’ As such the search strategy and data extraction sheet are published on OSF.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and advice in our revised manuscript.

1) Due to constraints on time and resources the review will focus only on English language studies. Given the sometimes complex and medical nature of the expected articles it was considered best not to rely on Google translate for accuracy purposes especially when quotes from participants in studies being reviewed are to be included. The JBI approach is to be as inclusive as possible and the authors recognise that not including languages will be a limitation of the study, and this will be highlighted when findings are being written up.

2) Covidence 2.0 software will be used. In keeping with the JBI approach to extracting findings, the data extraction will follow two phases. Study characteristics such as country, setting, stage of care and population will be included. To this we have added main results, evidence gaps and recommendations and this is included now on page 8, paragraph 1 under the heading Data Extraction.

In the second phase, findings will be extracted. Findings will be extracted alongside illustrations/quotes from the text that demonstrate where the finding originated. Findings will be coded, after which themes will be developed. As noted on page 8 under Data Extraction two independent reviewers will be involved in coding, with disputes being reached by consensus or with a third reviewer.

The findings and illustrations will be extracted verbatim from the paper completely unedited. Illustrations may include supporting data, fieldwork observations or verbatim words of participants.

On page 8 under ‘Data Synthesis and Integration’ the process of combining the qualitative data with the qualitized data into categories is detailed further.

3) Yes there are plans to pilot the data extraction sheet to establish reliability. A sample of five articles which have progressed to full text screening will be piloted by two reviewers. We have added this, page 8, paragraphs 2 and 3.

The lead author will review all articles and two other reviewers will sample half the texts each. The data extraction template will be completed by two reviewers. The piloted extraction sheets will be reviewed by the author and two reviewers and any conflicts will be resolved by consensus or by decision of a third reviewer. This is now added to page 8 paragraph 3.

Two authors will be involved in the synthesis of findings. Any conflicts will be involved by a consensus agreement or in consultation with a third reviewer.

4) The authors intend to use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for the critical appraisal of this study design. This is now included in the section ‘Assessment of methodological quality’.

5) A PPI panel of pwCF and HCPs and other stakeholders will be consulted in the interpretation of the findings. CF Ireland will use their social media accounts to raise awareness and invite discussion on the findings.

One author on this study is a HCP with expertise in delivering care to pwCF during pregnancy, the lead author is a pwCF who has been pregnant twice. A third author is the senior research and policy coordinator with the charity and advocacy organisation Cystic Fibrosis Ireland. All three authors have informally consulted with other stakeholders in the field, including pwCF, HCPS and charity representative bodies.

As a pwCF the author is deeply aware of the importance of participation and collaboration between HCPs and pwCF to further the research aims of pwCF and hopes that in doing so she will elucidate the potential for co-creation and design of research in a way that is fully participatory and engaged and moves beyond the trope of tokenism.

6) As stipulated on the HRB Open Research guidelines pertaining to supplementary material, ‘all materials associated with a manuscript are visible, FAIR, and subject to peer review, HRB Open Research does not accept supplementary material. Additional materials that support the key claims in the paper but are not absolutely required to follow the study design and analysis of the results, e.g. questionnaires, or supporting images or tables, can be included as extended data. Extended data should be deposited in an approved repository and listed as part of the data availability statement.’ As such the search strategy and data extraction sheet are published on OSF.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 28 Apr 2023

Jen Balfe, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

28 Apr 2023

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and ... Continue reading Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and advice in our revised manuscript.

1) Due to constraints on time and resources the review will focus only on English language studies. Given the sometimes complex and medical nature of the expected articles it was considered best not to rely on Google translate for accuracy purposes especially when quotes from participants in studies being reviewed are to be included. The JBI approach is to be as inclusive as possible and the authors recognise that not including languages will be a limitation of the study, and this will be highlighted when findings are being written up.

2) Covidence 2.0 software will be used. In keeping with the JBI approach to extracting findings, the data extraction will follow two phases. Study characteristics such as country, setting, stage of care and population will be included. To this we have added main results, evidence gaps and recommendations and this is included now on page 8, paragraph 1 under the heading Data Extraction.

In the second phase, findings will be extracted. Findings will be extracted alongside illustrations/quotes from the text that demonstrate where the finding originated. Findings will be coded, after which themes will be developed. As noted on page 8 under Data Extraction two independent reviewers will be involved in coding, with disputes being reached by consensus or with a third reviewer.

The findings and illustrations will be extracted verbatim from the paper completely unedited. Illustrations may include supporting data, fieldwork observations or verbatim words of participants.

On page 8 under ‘Data Synthesis and Integration’ the process of combining the qualitative data with the qualitized data into categories is detailed further.

3) Yes there are plans to pilot the data extraction sheet to establish reliability. A sample of five articles which have progressed to full text screening will be piloted by two reviewers. We have added this, page 8, paragraphs 2 and 3.

The lead author will review all articles and two other reviewers will sample half the texts each. The data extraction template will be completed by two reviewers. The piloted extraction sheets will be reviewed by the author and two reviewers and any conflicts will be resolved by consensus or by decision of a third reviewer. This is now added to page 8 paragraph 3.

Two authors will be involved in the synthesis of findings. Any conflicts will be involved by a consensus agreement or in consultation with a third reviewer.

4) The authors intend to use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for the critical appraisal of this study design. This is now included in the section ‘Assessment of methodological quality’.

5) A PPI panel of pwCF and HCPs and other stakeholders will be consulted in the interpretation of the findings. CF Ireland will use their social media accounts to raise awareness and invite discussion on the findings.

One author on this study is a HCP with expertise in delivering care to pwCF during pregnancy, the lead author is a pwCF who has been pregnant twice. A third author is the senior research and policy coordinator with the charity and advocacy organisation Cystic Fibrosis Ireland. All three authors have informally consulted with other stakeholders in the field, including pwCF, HCPS and charity representative bodies.

As a pwCF the author is deeply aware of the importance of participation and collaboration between HCPs and pwCF to further the research aims of pwCF and hopes that in doing so she will elucidate the potential for co-creation and design of research in a way that is fully participatory and engaged and moves beyond the trope of tokenism.

6) As stipulated on the HRB Open Research guidelines pertaining to supplementary material, ‘all materials associated with a manuscript are visible, FAIR, and subject to peer review, HRB Open Research does not accept supplementary material. Additional materials that support the key claims in the paper but are not absolutely required to follow the study design and analysis of the results, e.g. questionnaires, or supporting images or tables, can be included as extended data. Extended data should be deposited in an approved repository and listed as part of the data availability statement.’ As such the search strategy and data extraction sheet are published on OSF.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and advice in our revised manuscript.

1) Due to constraints on time and resources the review will focus only on English language studies. Given the sometimes complex and medical nature of the expected articles it was considered best not to rely on Google translate for accuracy purposes especially when quotes from participants in studies being reviewed are to be included. The JBI approach is to be as inclusive as possible and the authors recognise that not including languages will be a limitation of the study, and this will be highlighted when findings are being written up.

2) Covidence 2.0 software will be used. In keeping with the JBI approach to extracting findings, the data extraction will follow two phases. Study characteristics such as country, setting, stage of care and population will be included. To this we have added main results, evidence gaps and recommendations and this is included now on page 8, paragraph 1 under the heading Data Extraction.

In the second phase, findings will be extracted. Findings will be extracted alongside illustrations/quotes from the text that demonstrate where the finding originated. Findings will be coded, after which themes will be developed. As noted on page 8 under Data Extraction two independent reviewers will be involved in coding, with disputes being reached by consensus or with a third reviewer.

The findings and illustrations will be extracted verbatim from the paper completely unedited. Illustrations may include supporting data, fieldwork observations or verbatim words of participants.

On page 8 under ‘Data Synthesis and Integration’ the process of combining the qualitative data with the qualitized data into categories is detailed further.

3) Yes there are plans to pilot the data extraction sheet to establish reliability. A sample of five articles which have progressed to full text screening will be piloted by two reviewers. We have added this, page 8, paragraphs 2 and 3.

The lead author will review all articles and two other reviewers will sample half the texts each. The data extraction template will be completed by two reviewers. The piloted extraction sheets will be reviewed by the author and two reviewers and any conflicts will be resolved by consensus or by decision of a third reviewer. This is now added to page 8 paragraph 3.

Two authors will be involved in the synthesis of findings. Any conflicts will be involved by a consensus agreement or in consultation with a third reviewer.

4) The authors intend to use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for the critical appraisal of this study design. This is now included in the section ‘Assessment of methodological quality’.

5) A PPI panel of pwCF and HCPs and other stakeholders will be consulted in the interpretation of the findings. CF Ireland will use their social media accounts to raise awareness and invite discussion on the findings.

One author on this study is a HCP with expertise in delivering care to pwCF during pregnancy, the lead author is a pwCF who has been pregnant twice. A third author is the senior research and policy coordinator with the charity and advocacy organisation Cystic Fibrosis Ireland. All three authors have informally consulted with other stakeholders in the field, including pwCF, HCPS and charity representative bodies.

As a pwCF the author is deeply aware of the importance of participation and collaboration between HCPs and pwCF to further the research aims of pwCF and hopes that in doing so she will elucidate the potential for co-creation and design of research in a way that is fully participatory and engaged and moves beyond the trope of tokenism.

6) As stipulated on the HRB Open Research guidelines pertaining to supplementary material, ‘all materials associated with a manuscript are visible, FAIR, and subject to peer review, HRB Open Research does not accept supplementary material. Additional materials that support the key claims in the paper but are not absolutely required to follow the study design and analysis of the results, e.g. questionnaires, or supporting images or tables, can be included as extended data. Extended data should be deposited in an approved repository and listed as part of the data availability statement.’ As such the search strategy and data extraction sheet are published on OSF.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Mar 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 28 Apr 23	read	read
Version 1 23 Mar 22	read	read

Lyndsay A. Alexander, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK
Emily M. Godfrey, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

21 Views

26 May 2023 | for Version 2

Lyndsay A. Alexander, School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK

21 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The author response is clear and they have addressed the previous comments fully. I have no other comments to add and look forward to reading the results of this review.

Competing Interests

Deputy Director, Scottish Centre for Evidence-based, Multi-professional Care: A JBI Centre of Excellence

Reviewer Expertise

methodology in evidence synthesis

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

28 Views

09 May 2023 | for Version 2

Emily M. Godfrey, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

28 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I appreciate the thoughtful reply by the authors. They have done a nice job responding to the reviewer's comments.

MMAT is an excellent choice as the data extraction tool for this mix methods systematic review. The authors may want to specifically mention whether case reports will be excluded from this review. Generally speaking its pretty rare for authors who published a study (sometimes years ago) to respond to request for missing or extra data. What will the authors of this systematic review do if data is not acquired from authors whom they try to contact?

Otherwise, I have no further comments and wish the authors the best success in completing this systematic review.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Sexual and reproductive health in cystic fibrosis, patient engagement research methods, systematic reviews

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

52 Views

25 Oct 2022 | for Version 1

Emily M. Godfrey, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

52 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Sufian S, Mentch L and Godfrey EM. Women with CF are Helping Guide Reproductive and Sexual Health Research. CF Roundtable: A newsletter for adults who have Cystic Fibrosis, Summer 2017; 27(3): 16-17, 28
Pam, M. What is a family? Why does it matter? CF Roundtable: A newsletter for adults who have Cystic Fibrosis, Summer 2020; 30(3):10-11

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Sexual and reproductive health in cystic fibrosis, contraception abortion, patient engagement methods, systematic reviews

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

28 Apr 2023

Jen Balfe, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and advice in our revised manuscript.

1) Thank you for highlighting any lack of clarity here in terms of the outcomes relating to barriers and enablers. The authors were informed by the approach of Smith et al., (2019) who, although focusing on the Health Care Professional perspective provide an adaptable and employable set of definitions for the three stages that will be addressed in this study. Their definitions and our intent to adapt them accordingly for our study is outlined now on page 5 paragraph 4.

2) The authors are aware of the excellent and collaborative initiatives by CFRESHC and others and considered at the early stages of the protocol development including such resources.

From an initial scoping review, the lack of peer reviewed articles on experience in comparison to the amount of peer reviewed articles on outcomes and guidelines, highlighted the need to conduct this review.

This review is one part of a larger research project which was co-funded by the Irish Research Council and Cystic Fibrosis Ireland. Another arm of the project will involve an empirical study exploring the experience of pre-conception to post-partum care for pwCF and the HCPs involved in their care in Ireland.

To date the lead author and lead researcher has established an expert panel including pwCF from Ireland to inform the mixed-methods study from the protocol stage. Public and Patient Involvement(PPI) will be embedded in the study from protocol development, interview and survey guides, interpretation of findings through to dissemination stages.

This information is now included in the section referring to Public and Patient Involvement on page 9.
In order to ensure that the scope of the review was not too broad as to make it unachievable within the time frame to feed into the empirical study, it was decided that the primary focus would be on peer reviewed empirical studies. When disseminating the results of the findings of the review, the authors will ensure they share their findings with the global CF community through social media and publications/presentations.

3) As outlined above it was felt that it was important to assess the peer reviewed and empirical literature first so as to establish the context of fertility and pregnancy in CF in this sphere. Following the JBI approach we will use critical appraisal tools to assess the current literature pertaining to the topic.

The authors agree that an exploration of grey literature and its potential to illuminate barriers and enablers as considered in this area is a worthwhile future study.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

58 Views

06 Jun 2022 | for Version 1

Lyndsay A. Alexander, School of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK

58 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

I may have missed it but which languages will be included in this review? As international evidence will be included, will there also be all languages? if so, what is the plan for translation?
Please clarify which version of the Covidence data extraction software will be used and also provide some more detail on how the qualitative data will be assessed by theme and categorised, and how this relates to the JBI mixed methodology.
The draft data extraction chart is referred to but are there any plans for piloting to establish reliability between reviewers extracting data and also how to resolve any conflicts? how many reviewers will be involved in the synthesis?
As JBI does not have a Mixed method critical appraisal tool, can the authors clarify what JBI CA tool they are referring to for this study design?
Greater detail for the recruitment and involvement of pwCF and HCPs delivering care that will be involved in the interpretation and dissemination of the review findings are required as this could not be replicated as presented and could be considered tokenistic.
Although the protocol has been published on OSF, the draft search strategy and data extraction chart should be included as an appendix here for full transparency and peer review. I am unable to review them here due to this.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

Deputy Director, Scottish Centre for Evidence-based, Multi-professional Care: A JBI Centre of Excellence

Reviewer Expertise

methodology in evidence synthesis

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

28 Apr 2023

Jen Balfe, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to our systematic review protocol. We appreciate your constructive and considered feedback. We have addressed your suggestions and advice in our revised manuscript.

1) Due to constraints on time and resources the review will focus only on English language studies. Given the sometimes complex and medical nature of the expected articles it was considered best not to rely on Google translate for accuracy purposes especially when quotes from participants in studies being reviewed are to be included. The JBI approach is to be as inclusive as possible and the authors recognise that not including languages will be a limitation of the study, and this will be highlighted when findings are being written up.

2) Covidence 2.0 software will be used. In keeping with the JBI approach to extracting findings, the data extraction will follow two phases. Study characteristics such as country, setting, stage of care and population will be included. To this we have added main results, evidence gaps and recommendations and this is included now on page 8, paragraph 1 under the heading Data Extraction.

In the second phase, findings will be extracted. Findings will be extracted alongside illustrations/quotes from the text that demonstrate where the finding originated. Findings will be coded, after which themes will be developed. As noted on page 8 under Data Extraction two independent reviewers will be involved in coding, with disputes being reached by consensus or with a third reviewer.

The findings and illustrations will be extracted verbatim from the paper completely unedited. Illustrations may include supporting data, fieldwork observations or verbatim words of participants.

On page 8 under ‘Data Synthesis and Integration’ the process of combining the qualitative data with the qualitized data into categories is detailed further.

3) Yes there are plans to pilot the data extraction sheet to establish reliability. A sample of five articles which have progressed to full text screening will be piloted by two reviewers. We have added this, page 8, paragraphs 2 and 3.

The lead author will review all articles and two other reviewers will sample half the texts each. The data extraction template will be completed by two reviewers. The piloted extraction sheets will be reviewed by the author and two reviewers and any conflicts will be resolved by consensus or by decision of a third reviewer. This is now added to page 8 paragraph 3.

Two authors will be involved in the synthesis of findings. Any conflicts will be involved by a consensus agreement or in consultation with a third reviewer.

4) The authors intend to use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for the critical appraisal of this study design. This is now included in the section ‘Assessment of methodological quality’.

5) A PPI panel of pwCF and HCPs and other stakeholders will be consulted in the interpretation of the findings. CF Ireland will use their social media accounts to raise awareness and invite discussion on the findings.

One author on this study is a HCP with expertise in delivering care to pwCF during pregnancy, the lead author is a pwCF who has been pregnant twice. A third author is the senior research and policy coordinator with the charity and advocacy organisation Cystic Fibrosis Ireland. All three authors have informally consulted with other stakeholders in the field, including pwCF, HCPS and charity representative bodies.

As a pwCF the author is deeply aware of the importance of participation and collaboration between HCPs and pwCF to further the research aims of pwCF and hopes that in doing so she will elucidate the potential for co-creation and design of research in a way that is fully participatory and engaged and moves beyond the trope of tokenism.

6) As stipulated on the HRB Open Research guidelines pertaining to supplementary material, ‘all materials associated with a manuscript are visible, FAIR, and subject to peer review, HRB Open Research does not accept supplementary material. Additional materials that support the key claims in the paper but are not absolutely required to follow the study design and analysis of the results, e.g. questionnaires, or supporting images or tables, can be included as extended data. Extended data should be deposited in an approved repository and listed as part of the data availability statement.’ As such the search strategy and data extraction sheet are published on OSF.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Cystic Fibrosis foundation patient registry report. 2019. Reference Source

[2] 2. UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry Annual Data Report. 2019. Reference Source

[3] 3. Siegel B, Siegel S: Pregnancy and Delivery in a Patient with Cystic Fibrosis of the Pancreas: Report of a case. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1960; 16(4): 438–440.

[4] 4. Schechter MS, Quittner AL, Konstan MW, et al.: Long-term Effects of Pregnancy and Motherhood on Disease Outcomes of Women with Cystic Fibrosis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2013; 10(3): 213–219. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Edenborough FP, Borgo G, Knoop C, et al.: Guidelines for the management of pregnancy in women with cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2008; 7 Suppl 1: S2–S32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Gilljam M, Antoniou M, Shin J, et al.: Pregnancy in cystic fibrosis. Fetal and maternal outcome. Chest. 2000; 118(1): 85–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Kazmerski TM, Sawicki GS, Miller E, et al.: Sexual and reproductive health behaviors and experiences reported by young women with cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2018; 17(1): 57–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Traxler SA, Chavez V, Hadjiliadis D, et al.: Fertility considerations and attitudes about family planning among women with cystic fibrosis. Contraception. 2019; 100(3): 228–233. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Kalpakjian CZ, Haapala HJ, Ernst SD, et al.: Development of a new pregnancy informational and decisional needs survey for women with physical disabilities. Disabil Health J. 2021; 14(3): 101056. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Edenborough FP, Stableforth DE, Webb AK, et al.: Outcome of pregnancy in women with cystic fibrosis. Thorax. 1995; 50(2): 170–174. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Edenborough FP, Mackenzie WE, Stableforth DE: The outcome of 72 pregnancies in 55 women with cystic fibrosis in the United Kingdom 1977-1996. BJOG. 2000; 107(2): 254–261. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Jelin AC, Sharshiner R, Caughey AB: Maternal co-morbidities and neonatal outcomes associated with cystic fibrosis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 30(1): 4–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Gatiss S, Mansour D, Doe S, et al.: Provision of contraception services and advice for women with cystic fibrosis. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2009; 35(3): 157–160. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Hughan KS, Daley T, Rayas MS, et al.: Female reproductive health in cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2019; 18 Suppl 2: S95–S104. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Hailey CE, Tan JW, Dellon EP, et al.: Pursuing parenthood with cystic fibrosis: Reproductive health and parenting concerns in individuals with cystic fibrosis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2019; 54(8): 1225–1233. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Holton S, Fisher J, Button B, et al.: Childbearing concerns, information needs and preferences of women with cystic fibrosis: An online discussion group. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2019; 19: 31–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Jain R, Kazmerski TM, Zuckerwise LC, et al.: Pregnancy in cystic fibrosis: Review of the literature and expert recommendations. J Cyst Fibros. 2021; S1569-1993(21)01338-2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Cammidge SL, Duff AJA, Latchford GJ, et al.: When Women with Cystic Fibrosis Become Mothers: Psychosocial Impact and Adjustments. Pulm Med. 2016; 2016: 9458980. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Smith, T, et al.: A study of macro-, meso- and micro-barriers and enablers affecting extended scopes of practice: the case of rural nurse practitioners in Australia. BMC Nurs. 2019; 18: 14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Lizarondo L, Stern C, Carrier J, et al.: Chapter 8: Mixed methods systematic reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Page MJ, McKenzie ME, Bossuyt PM, et al.: Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 134: 103–112. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, et al.: Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Lockwood C, Porrit K, Munn Z, et al.: Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. InAromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. Publisher Full Text

Exploring the barriers and enablers experienced by people with Cystic Fibrosis and their healthcare professionals in accessing, utilising and delivering maternity and Cystic Fibrosis care during the pre-conception to post-partum period: A mixed methods systematic review protocol.

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Review question

Inclusion criteria

Population

Phenomena of interest

Context

Types of studies

Methods

Search strategy and Information Sources

Study selection

Assessment of methodological quality

Data extraction

Data synthesis and integration

Study status

Discussion

Patient and Public Involvement

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Exploring the barriers and enablers experienced by people with Cystic Fibrosis and their healthcare professionals in accessing, utilising and delivering maternity and Cystic Fibrosis care during the pre-conception to post-partum period: A mixed methods systematic review protocol.

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Review question

Inclusion criteria

Population

Phenomena of interest

Context

Types of studies

Methods

Search strategy and Information Sources

Study selection

Assessment of methodological quality

Data extraction

Data synthesis and integration

Study status

Discussion

Patient and Public Involvement

Data availability

Underlying data

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!