Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33079940›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS).

Ceri Glenister, Ethel Burns, Rachel Rowe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ceri GlenisterOxford School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Ethel BurnsOxford School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Rachel RoweNuffield Department of Population Health, NIHR Policy Research Unit in Maternal and Neonatal Health and Care, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2994-3240
Oxford Brookes University · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2014-07-006Department of Health PR-PRU-1217-21202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe the extent to which local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units align with national guidance; to describe variation in individual admission criteria; and to describe the extent to which alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are the default option for eligible women.

designNational cross-sectional survey.

settingAll 122 UK maternity services with midwifery units, between October 2018 and February 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Alignment of local admission guidelines with national guidance (NICE CG190); frequency and nature of variation in individual admission criteria; percentage of services with AMU as default birth setting for eligible women.

resultsAdmission guidelines were received from 87 maternity services (71%), representing 153 units, and we analysed 85 individual guideline documents. Overall, 92% of local admission guidelines varied from national guidance; 76% contained both some admission criteria that were 'more inclusive' and some that were 'more restrictive' than national guidance. The most common 'more inclusive' admission criteria, occurring in 40-80% of guidelines, were: explicit admission of women with parity ≥4; aged 35-40yrs; with a BMI 30-35kg/m2; selective admission of women with a BMI 35-40kg/m2; Group B Streptococcus carriers; and those undergoing induction of labour. The most common 'more restrictive' admission criteria, occurring in around 30% of guidelines, excluded women who: declined blood products; had experienced female genital cutting; were aged <16yrs; or had not attended for regular antenatal care. Over half of services (59%) reported the AMU as the default option for healthy women with straightforward pregnancies.

conclusionsThe variation in local midwifery unit admission criteria found in this study represents a potentially confusing and inequitable basis for women making choices about planned place of birth. A review of national guidance may be indicated and where a lack of relevant evidence underlies variation in admission criteria, further research by planned place of birth is required.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicAdultBirthing CentersBody Mass IndexCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHospitalizationHumansMidwiferyParityPregnancyPrenatal CareStreptococcal InfectionsStreptococcus agalactiaeSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID33079940
PMCPMC7575094
OpenAlexW3093736927

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.