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.
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Facility-Based Maternal Quality of Care Frameworks: A Systematic Review and Best Fit Framework Analysis.Maternal and child health journal · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of midwifery-led care on pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Pooled it
- Place and space in relation to childbirth: a critical interpretive synthesis.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2020Pooled it
- Impact of non-communicable diseases on maternal and perinatal outcomes in a low resource setting.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2025Article
- Can we implement midwifery-led continuity of care in Ethiopia? Maternal health leaders and midwives perspective: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Article
- The effect of midwifery-led continuum of care to improve maternal and newborn outcomes in the Sidama region, Ethiopia: A non-randomized control trial study.SAGE open medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the landscape of Canadian midwifery research: strengths, gaps and priorities - results of a scoping review.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Unplanned visits and midwife-led antenatal care.European journal of midwifery · 2022Article
- Article
- From Midwife-Dominated to Midwifery-Led Antenatal Care: A Meta-Ethnography.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
- Article
- Models for midwifery care: A mapping review.European journal of midwifery · 2020Review
- The midwifery-led care model: a continuity of care model in the birth path.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2019Review
- Article
- Improving Maternal and Neonatal Health by a Midwife-led Continuity Model of Care - An Observational Study in One Governmental Hospital in Palestine.EClinicalMedicine · 2019Article
- Adapting the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care (QMNC) Framework to evaluate models of antenatal care: A pilot study.PloS one · 2018Article
- Antenatal care trial interventions: a systematic scoping review and taxonomy development of care models.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
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
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.