Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32724762›Full record

ReviewIranian journal of nursing and midwifery research

Freestanding Midwife-Led Units: A Narrative Review.

Grażyna Bączek, Urszula Tataj-Puzyna, Dorota Sys, Barbara Baranowska

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Grażyna BączekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Didactics, Medical University of Warsaw, Warszawa, Poland.
Urszula Tataj-PuzynaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Didactics, Medical University of Warsaw, Warszawa, Poland.
Dorota SysDepartment of Reproductive Health, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Barbara BaranowskaDepartment of Midwifery, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrengthening of midwives' position and support for freestanding birth centers, frequently referred to as Freestanding Midwife-led Units (FMUs), raise hopes for a return to humanized labor. Our study aimed to review published evidence regarding FMUs to systematize the knowledge of their functioning and to identify potential gaps in this matter. MATERIALS AND

methodsA structured integrative review of theoretical papers and empirical studies was conducted. The literature search included MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, and Embase databases. The analysis included papers published in 1977-2017. Relevant documents were identified using various combinations of search terms and standard Boolean operators. The search included titles, abstracts, and keywords. Additional records were found through a manual search of reference lists from extracted papers.

resultsOverall, 56 out of 107 originally found articles were identified as eligible for the review. Based on the critical analysis of published data, six groups of research problems were identified and discussed, namely, 1) specifics of FMUs, 2) costs of perinatal care at FMUs, 3) FMUs as a place for midwife education, 4) FMUs from midwives' perspective, 5) perinatal, maternal, and neonatal outcomes, and 6) FMUs from the perspective of a pregnant woman.

conclusionsFMUs offers a home-like environment and complex midwifery support for women with uncomplicated pregnancies. Although emergency equipment is available as needed, FMU birth is considered a natural spontaneous process. Midwives' supervision over low-risk labors may provide many benefits, primarily related to lower medicalization and fewer medical interventions than in a hospital setting.

Indexed as

birthing centersBirth settingmidwiferyperinatal carereview

Identifiers

PMID32724762
PMCPMC7299417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.