ArticleMidwifery2014
Survey of women's experiences of care in a new freestanding midwifery unit in an inner city area of London, England. 1: Methods and women's overall ratings of care.
Article in Midwifery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Facilitators and Barriers to Access to Midwife-Led Birth Settings for Racialized Women in the UK: A Scoping Review.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2025Article
- The relationship between ethnicity and place of birth in England: a mixed-methods study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Experience of induction of labour: a cross-sectional postnatal survey of women at UK maternity units.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Client Experience with the Ontario Birth Center Demonstration Project.Journal of midwifery & women's health · 2021Article
- The development of midwifery unit standards for Europe.Midwifery · 2020Article
- Woman-centred care during pregnancy and birth in Ireland: thematic analysis of women's and clinicians' experiences.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveto describe and compare women's choices and experiences of maternity care before and after the opening of the Barkantine Birth Centre, a new freestanding midwifery unit in an inner city area.
designtelephone surveys undertaken in late pregnancy and about six weeks after birth in two separate time periods, Phase 1 before the birth centre opened and Phase 2 after it had opened.
settingTower Hamlets, a deprived inner city borough in east London, England, 2007-2010.
participants620 women who were resident in Tower Hamlets and who satisfied the Barts and the London NHS Trust's eligibility criteria for using the birth centre. Of these, 259 women were recruited to Phase 1 and 361 to Phase 2. MEASUREMENTS AND
findingswomen who satisfied the criteria for birth centre care and who booked antenatally for care at the birth centre were significantly more likely to rate their care as good or very good overall than corresponding women who also satisfied these criteria but booked initially at the hospital. Women who started labour care in spontaneous labour at the birth centre were significantly more likely to be cared for by a midwife they had already met, have one to one care in labour and have the same midwife with them throughout their labour. They were also significantly more likely to report that the staff were kind and understanding, that they were treated with respect and dignity and that their privacy was respected. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: this survey in an inner city area showed that women who chose the freestanding midwifery unit care had positive experiences to report. Taken together with the findings of the Birthplace Programme, it adds further weight to the evidence in support of freestanding midwifery unit care for women without obstetric complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.