Email this article 
Development of an organizational technology for managing risk factors for the development of habitual miscarriage
- Authors: Plutnitsky A.N.1, Grishina N.K.2, Vartanyan E.A.2, Mikhailov I.A.3
- Affiliations:
- Medical and Biological University of Innovation and Continuous Education, A. I. Burnazyan Federal Medical and Biological Center, Moscow, Russia
- N. A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health, Moscow, Russian Federation
- N. A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health, Moscow, Russian Federation, Center for Expertise and Quality Control of Medical Care, Moscow, Russia, Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Moscow, Russia
- Issue: No 4 (2024)
- Pages: 337-341
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://remedium-journal.ru/journal/article/view/1727
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.32687/1561-5936-2024-28-4-337-341
- Cite item
Abstract
The aim of the study was to develop an organizational technology for managing risk factors for the development of habitual miscarriage. Risk factors for the development of habitual miscarriage were selected by the author in the course of a previous study. In this study, the significance of these factors was assessed using the expert assessment method. The requirements for the experts were as follows: at least 5 years of experience in a managerial position; at least 10 years of experience working with patients with recurrent miscarriage; a valid certificate in public health and healthcare. An expert questionnaire was developed in which each factor was assessed from 1 to 5 points (1 point is the minimum significance of the factor; 5 points is the maximum significance of the factor). The coefficient of agreement of expert opinions (Kendall's concordance coefficient) was calculated. The statistical significance of differences was assessed using the nonparametric Friedman criterion. The most important factors according to the expert survey are the presence of 1 or more cases of miscarriage in the anamnesis (average value is 4.90 points), the factor of insufficient provision of highly qualified specialists treating this group of patients (average value is 4.90 points) and the factor of the presence of cervicovaginal infection (average value is 4.90 points). The second most important factor according to the expert survey is the presence of endocrine disorders in the woman's body (average value is 4.60 points). An organizational model (structure) of the department of miscarriage prevention based on the consultative and diagnostic center has been developed and proposed.
About the authors
Andrey N. Plutnitsky
Medical and Biological University of Innovation and Continuous Education, A. I. Burnazyan Federal Medical and Biological Center, Moscow, Russia
Email: mbufmbc@mail.ru
Natalya K. Grishina
N. A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health, Moscow, Russian Federation
Email: uch_secret@mail.ru
Elen A. Vartanyan
N. A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health, Moscow, Russian Federation
Email: elenvartanian@gmail.com
Ilya A. Mikhailov
N. A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health, Moscow, Russian Federation, Center for Expertise and Quality Control of Medical Care, Moscow, Russia, Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Moscow, Russia
Email: mikhailov@rosmedex.ru
References
- Sidelnikova V. M. Pregnancy loss: up-to-date concept. Doctor.ru. 2009;(6–1):42–46.
- Belyaeva M. A., Bobrov S. A., Lapin S. V. Clinical and immunological interactions in the recurrent miscarriage and their correction methods. Herald of the Northwestern State Medical University named after I. I. Mechnikov. 2015;7(3):118–123.
- Korotchenko O. E., Syrkasheva A. G., Dolgushina N. V. et al. Effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening in patients with recurrent miscarriage and infertility. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;(3):64–69. doi: 10.18565/aig.2018.3.64-69
- Frolova O. G., Shuvalova M. P., Grebennik T. K., Dolgushina N. V. Perinatal mortality in the Russian Federation. Possible ways to reduce it. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2012;(6):47–51.
- Frolova O. G., Palenaya I. I., Shuvalova M. P., Sukhanova L. P. Regional aspects of stillbirth in the Russian Federation in 2008. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2011;(1):105–109.
- Pantzar J. T., Allanson J. E., Kalousek D. K., Poland B. J. Cytogenetic findings in 318 couples with repeated spontaneous abortion: a review of experience in British Columbia. Am. J. Med. Genet. 1984;17(3):615–620. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320170310
- Nikolaeva A. S., Tanysheva G. A. Modern aspects of prediction and prevention of premature birth. Literature review. Science and Healthcare. 2019;(5):23–36.
- Wang X., Xie L., Pengetnze Y. M. et al. Timely preterm-birth prediction among pregnant women in Medicaid without preterm-birth history. Am. J. Manag. Care. 2021;27(5):e145–e151. doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2021.88636
- Vartanian E. A., Gridnev O. V., Belostotsky A. V. et al. The analysis of actual approaches in evaluating efficiency of medical care of female patients with habitual miscarriage. Problems of social hygiene, public health and history of medicine. 2018;26(4):236–239. doi: 10.32687/0869-866X-2018-26-4-236-239
- Starodubov V. I., Kalininskaya A. A., Shlyafer S. I. Primary health care: status and development prospects. Moscow; 2007. (In Russ.)
- Vedischev S. I., Prokopov A. Yu., Zhabina U. V., Osmanov E. M. Modern concepts of the causes of miscarriage. Bulletin of Russian Universities. Mathematics. 2013;18(4–1):1309–1312.
