Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27430506›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2016

Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care.

Andrew Symon, Jan Pringle, Helen Cheyne, Soo Downe, Vanora Hundley, Elaine Lee, Fiona Lynn, Alison McFadden, Jenny McNeill, Mary J Renfrew and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Place and space in relation to childbirth: a critical interpretive synthesis.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Unplanned visits and midwife-led antenatal care.European journal of midwifery · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. From Midwife-Dominated to Midwifery-Led Antenatal Care: A Meta-Ethnography.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Models for midwifery care: A mapping review.European journal of midwifery · 2020
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Andrew SymonMother and Infant Research Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, UK. a.g.symon@dundee.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9269-940X
Jan PringleSchool of Nursing & Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, UK.
Helen CheyneNMAHP Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Soo DowneSchool of Health, Brook Building, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Vanora HundleyCentre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health, Faculty of Health & Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, BU1 3LH, UK.
Elaine LeeMother and Infant Research Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, UK.
Fiona LynnSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK.
Alison McFaddenMother and Infant Research Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, UK.
Jenny McNeillSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK.
Mary J RenfrewMother and Infant Research Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, UK.
Mary Ross-DavieMaternal and Child Health, NHS Education for Scotland, Edinburgh, EH3 9DN, UK.
Edwin van TeijlingenCentre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health, Faculty of Health & Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, BU1 3LH, UK.
Heather WhitfordMother and Infant Research Unit, University of Dundee, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, UK.
Fiona AlderdiceSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office NMAHP1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care.

methodsA systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models' characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria.

resultsFrom 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0-32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported.

conclusionsThe QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAustraliaCanadaChinaFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornIrelandMaternal-Child Health ServicesMexicoMidwiferyPregnancyPrenatal CareQuality Assurance, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSwedenCare modelCharacteristics of careMaternity careMidwifery-ledOutcomesPregnancyQualityRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID27430506
PMCPMC4949880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.