ArticleBMJ open2020
Investigating the benefits and challenges of including bereaved women in research: a multifaceted perinatal audit in a socially disadvantaged French district.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strengthening open disclosure after incidents in maternity care: a realist synthesis of international research evidence.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Bereaved parents involvement in maternity hospital perinatal death review processes: 'Nobody even thought to ask us anything'.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe experiences including interviews with bereaved women in a clinical audit.
designThe data come from an audit of all stillbirths and neonatal deaths at ≥22 weeks of gestation in Seine-Saint-Denis, a disadvantaged French district in 2014. We included bereaved women using a questionnaire that also contained open-ended questions administered in an interview format by a midwife-investigator several weeks after the death. The study included a referral protocol for bereaved women with unmet needs revealed during the interviews. A psychological support for the three midwife-investigators was set-up, in the form of a support group.
settingThe 11 maternity hospitals in the district.
participants218 women (227 deaths). ANALYSES: Data come from medical records, maternal interviews, the reviews of the audit's expert panel and written narratives of their experiences provided by the midwife-investigators. Quantitative data were analysed statistically, and qualitative data thematically.
resultsOne-third (75) of the women agreed to an interview, but acceptance ranged from 6% to 60% by maternity unit. Characteristics of respondents and non-respondents were similar. Members of the audit's expert panel reported that 41% of the interviews contained new information relevant to their assessment. Of the women interviewed, 35% were referred to a medical professional, psychologist or social worker. Midwife-investigators' experiences illustrated the benefits of a support group with three main themes identified: improving their interactions with bereaved women as well as medical teams and protecting their psychological well-being.
conclusionThese results showed that including interviews with bereaved women in audit designs was feasible and provided valuable information on women's care and social circumstances that were not available in medical records. They also highlight the importance of implementing referral protocols for the bereaved women, used in over one-third of cases, as well as providing support for study investigators.
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.