Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31345239›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2019

Midwives' perspectives on (dis)respectful intrapartum care during facility-based delivery in sub-Saharan Africa: a qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Susan Bradley, Christine McCourt, Juliet Rayment, Divya Parmar

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Content and design of respectful maternity care training packages for health workers in sub-Saharan Africa: Scoping review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Susan BradleySchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, 1 Myddelton Street, London, EC1R 1UW, UK. Susan.Bradley@city.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6797-3291
Christine McCourtSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, 1 Myddelton Street, London, EC1R 1UW, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4765-5795
Juliet RaymentSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, 1 Myddelton Street, London, EC1R 1UW, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4376-3406
Divya ParmarSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, 1 Myddelton Street, London, EC1R 1UW, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7979-3140

Funding

City, University of London School of Health Sciences Doctoral Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the past decade, the negative impact of disrespectful maternity care on women's utilisation and experiences of facility-based delivery has been well documented. Less is known about midwives' perspectives on these labour ward dynamics. Yet efforts to provide care that satisfies women's psycho-socio-cultural needs rest on midwives' capacity and willingness to provide it. We performed a systematic review of the emerging literature documenting midwives' perspectives to explore the broader drivers of (dis)respectful care during facility-based delivery in the sub-Saharan African context.

methodsSeven databases (CINAHL, PsychINFO, PsychArticles, Embase, Global Health, Maternity and Infant Care and PubMed) were systematically searched from 1990 to May 2018. Primary qualitative studies with a substantial focus on the interpersonal aspects of care were eligible if they captured midwives' voices and perspectives. Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers and PRISMA guidelines were followed. The results and findings from each study were synthesised using an existing conceptual framework of the drivers of disrespectful care.

resultsEleven papers from six countries were included and six main themes were identified. 'Power and control' and 'Maintaining midwives' status' reflected midwives' focus on the micro-level interactions of the mother-midwife dyad. Meso-level drivers of disrespectful care were: the constraints of the 'Work environment and resources'; concerns about 'Midwives' position in the health systems hierarchy'; and the impact of 'Midwives' conceptualisations of respectful maternity care'. An emerging theme outlined the 'Impact on midwives' of (dis)respectful care.

conclusionWe used a theoretically informed conceptual framework to move beyond the micro-level and interrogate the social, cultural and historical factors that underpin (dis)respectful care. Controlling women was a key theme, echoing women's experiences, but midwives paid less attention to the social inequalities that distress women. The synthesis highlighted midwives' low status in the health system hierarchy, while organisational cultures of blame and a lack of consideration for them as professionals effectively constitute disrespect and abuse of these health workers. Broader, interdisciplinary perspectives on the wider drivers of midwives' disrespectful attitudes and behaviours are crucial if efforts to improve the maternity care environment - for women and midwives - are to succeed.

Indexed as

Labor, ObstetricFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansMaternal Health ServicesMidwiferyPregnancyQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareChildbirthDisrespect and abuseFacility-based deliveryMidwiferyRespectful maternity careSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID31345239
PMCPMC6659209

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.