Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30642335›Full record

SynthesisHuman resources for health2019

The role and scope of practice of midwives in humanitarian settings: a systematic review and content analysis.

Kristen Beek, Alison McFadden, Angela Dawson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human resources for health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Immigrant women's experience of labor and birth.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Exclusive breastfeeding after breast cancer. Case study.Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

Kristen BeekThe Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Alison McFaddenMother and Infant Research Unit, School of Nursing & Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland, UK. a.m.mcfadden@dundee.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5164-2025
Angela DawsonThe Australian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMidwives have an essential role to play in preparing for and providing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in humanitarian settings due to their unique knowledge and skills, position as frontline providers and geographic and social proximity to the communities they serve. There are considerable gaps in the international guidance that defines the scope of practice of midwives in crises, particularly for the mitigation and preparedness, and recovery phases. We undertook a systematic review to provide further clarification of this scope of practice and insights to optimise midwifery performance. The review aimed to determine what SRH services midwives are involved in delivering across the emergency management cycle in humanitarian contexts, and how they are working with other professionals to deliver health care.

methodsFour electronic databases and the websites of 33 organisations were searched between January and March 2017. Papers were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English between 2007 and 2017 and reported primary research pertaining to the role of midwives in delivering and performing any component of sexual and/or reproductive health in humanitarian settings. Content analysis was used to map the study findings to the Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) for SRH across the three phases of the disaster management cycle and identify how midwives work with other members of the health care team.

resultsFourteen studies from ten countries were included. Twelve studies were undertaken in conflict settings, and two were conducted in the context of the aftermath of natural disasters. We found a paucity of evidence from the research literature that examines the activities and roles undertaken by midwives across the disaster management cycle. This lack of evidence was more apparent during the mitigation and preparedness, and recovery phases than the response phase of the disaster management cycle.

conclusionResearch-informed guidelines and strategies are required to better align the scope of practice of midwives with the objectives of multi-agency guidelines and agreements, as well as the activities of the MISP, to ensure that the potential of midwives can be acknowledged and optimised across the disaster management cycle.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareDisastersHealth PersonnelHealth ServicesMidwiferyProfessional RoleRelief WorkAltruismFemaleHumansNurse MidwivesPatient Care TeamPregnancyReproductive HealthReproductive Health ServicesSexual HealthDisaster management cycleHumanitarian settingsMidwivesSexual and reproductive healthSystematic reviewTask-sharingTask-shifting

Identifiers

PMID30642335
PMCPMC6333021

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.