Background It is estimated that over 930 million people live in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCAS) worldwide. These regions, characterized by violence, civil unrest, and war, are often governed by corrupt administrations who are unwilling to provide their citizens with basic human rights. Individuals living in FCAS face health inequities; however, women are disproportionally affected and face additional barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive services, including antenatal care (ANC). This systematic review aims to identify the factors that impact ANC usage in the 37 countries or regions classified as FCAS in 2020 by The World Bank. Methods Using the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of five databases (SCOPUS, Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL) was conducted. Results were limited to human studies, written in English, and published between January 2002 and January 2022. Studies that identified factors affecting utilization of ANC or maternal health services were included for review and critically appraised using the National Institute of Health’s Quality Assessment Tools. Findings were summarized using a narrative synthesis approach. Results The database search yielded 26,527 studies. After title, abstract and full-text review, and exclusion of duplicate articles, 121 studies remained. Twenty-eight of the 37 FCAS were represented in the included studies. The studies highlighted that women in FCAS’ are still not meeting the World Health Organization’s 2002 recommendation of four ANC visits during pregnancy, a recommendation which has since been increased to eight visits. The most cited factors impacting ANC were socioeconomic status, education, and poor quality of ANC. Despite all studies being conducted in conflict-affected regions, only nine studies explicitly identified conflict as a direct barrier to accessing ANC. Conclusion This review demonstrated that there is a paucity in the literature examining the direct and indirect impacts of conflict on ANC utilization. Specifically, research should be conducted in the nine FCAS that are not currently represented in the literature. To mitigate the barriers that prevent utilization of maternal health services identified in this review, policy makers, women utilizing ANC, and global organizations should attempt to collaborate to enact policy change at the local level.

Background Breastmilk hand expression (BMHE) is recommended to promote lactation, relieve breast engorgement, and collect milk for future infant feedings. Resources to teach this skill are limited and infrequently developed in partnership with the obstetrical population. In collaboration with maternity care experts and individuals with recent breastfeeding experience, we designed a one-page toolkit that describes the process of BMHE and includes step-by-step instructions and images to illustrate the technique. This study aimed to evaluate the readability, clarity of content, layout, and informational value of this BMHE toolkit. Methods Individuals who intended to breastfeed, were currently breastfeeding, or had recently breastfed were electronically surveyed and completed a two-part survey that consisted of radio, multi-select, Likert scale, and open-ended questions. Part one captured sociodemographic factors, obstetrical history, and breastfeeding practices. Part two collected feedback on the BMHE toolkit. Participants were recruited electronically through social media and posters were circulated in antenatal and postnatal care settings in Ottawa, Canada between November 2020 and February 2021. Results Of the 123 participants, 117 (95.1%) had heard of hand expression prior to reviewing the toolkit and 99 (80.5%) had hand expressed before. Among the 48 participants who were no longer exclusively breastfeeding at the time of the survey, 22 (45.8%) had exclusively breastfed their infant for at least six months and 7 (14.6%) had discontinued exclusive breastfeeding within the first month. When asked about the BMHE toolkit, 118 (95.9%) participants said it was informative, 115 (93.5%) said it was easy to understand, and 114 (92.7%) said it was well laid-out. When asked about information seeking behaviours, participants indicated a preference for online resources (58.5%) and video resources (22.0%). Conclusions The BMHE toolkit was well received by participants and the feedback was favourable overall. The survey feedback will be used to create a revised version of the toolkit that has been validated by the obstetrical patient population. Future research should focus on identifying implementation strategies to optimize the use of the toolkit and increase its effectiveness as an educational resource to teach participants correctly BMHE.

Background: Competence by design (CBD) residency programs increasingly depend on tools that provide reliable assessments, require minimal rater training, and measure progression through the CBD milestones. To assess intraoperative skills, global rating scales and entrustability ratings are commonly used but may require extensive training.  The Competency Continuum (CC) is a CBD framework that may be used as an assessment tool to assess laparoscopic skills. The study aimed to compare the CC to two other assessment tools: the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) and the Zwisch scale. Methods: Four expert surgeons rated thirty laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos. Two raters used the GOALS scale while the remaining two raters used both the Zwisch scale and CC. Each rater received scale-specific training. Descriptive statistics, inter-rater reliabilities (IRR), and Pearson’s correlations were calculated for each scale. Results: Significant positive correlations between GOALS and Zwisch (r = 0.75, p < 0.001), CC and GOALS (r = 0.79, p < 0.001), and CC and Zwisch (r = 0.90, p < 0.001) were found. The CC had an inter-rater reliability of 0.74 whereas the GOALS and Zwisch scales had inter-rater reliabilities of 0.44 and 0.43, respectively. Compared to GOALS and Zwisch scales, the CC had the highest inter-rater reliability and required minimal rater training to achieve reliable scores. Conclusion: The CC may be a reliable tool to assess intraoperative laparoscopic skills and provide trainees with formative feedback relevant to the CBD milestones. Further research should collect further validity evidence for the use of the CC as an independent assessment tool.

No abstract