Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33541371›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2021

Implementation science in maternity care: a scoping review.

Ann Dadich, Annika Piper, Dominiek Coates

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
18.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Global, regional, and national burden of maternal hemorrhage from 1990 to 2021, with projections to 2050: Insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  6. Exploring Challenges and Co-Developing a Nutritional Resource for Antenatal Care: A Participatory Stakeholder Engagement Study With Midwives and Public Involvement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ann DadichWestern Sydney University, School of Business, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia. A.Dadich@westernsydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5767-1794
Annika PiperWestern Sydney University, School of Business, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
Dominiek CoatesUniversity of Technology Sydney, Broadway, PO Box 123, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4463-7615
Western Sydney University · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite wide recognition that clinical care should be informed by the best available evidence, this does not always occur. Despite a myriad of theories, models and frameworks to promote evidence-based population health, there is still a long way to go, particularly in maternity care. The aim of this study is to appraise the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions in maternity care. This is achieved by clarifying if and how implementation science theories, models, and frameworks are used.

methodsTo map relevant literature, a scoping review was conducted of articles published between January 2005 and December 2019, guided by Peters and colleagues' (2015) approach. Specifically, the following academic databases were systematically searched to identify publications that presented findings on implementation science or the implementation process (rather than just the intervention effect): Business Source Complete; CINAHL Plus with Full Text; Health Business Elite; Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition; Medline; PsycARTICLES; PsycINFO; and PubMed. Information about each study was extracted using a purposely designed data extraction form.

resultsOf the 1181 publications identified, 158 were included in this review. Most of these reported on factors that enabled implementation, including knowledge, training, service provider motivation, effective multilevel coordination, leadership and effective communication-yet there was limited expressed use of a theory, model or framework to guide implementation. Of the 158 publications, 144 solely reported on factors that helped and/or hindered implementation, while only 14 reported the use of a theory, model and/or framework. When a theory, model or framework was used, it typically guided data analysis or, to a lesser extent, the development of data collection tools-rather than for instance, the design of the study.

conclusionGiven that models and frameworks can help to describe phenomenon, and theories can help to both describe and explain it, evidence-based maternity care might be promoted via the greater expressed use of these to ultimately inform implementation science. Specifically, advancing evidence-based maternity care, worldwide, will require the academic community to make greater explicit and judicious use of theories, models, and frameworks. REGISTRATION: Registered with the Joanna Briggs Institute (registration number not provided).

Indexed as

Implementation ScienceMaternal Health ServicesFemaleHumansLeadershipMotivationPregnancyChildbirthFrameworkKnowledge translationMaternity careModelPregnancyScoping reviewTheory

Identifiers

PMID33541371
PMCPMC7860184
OpenAlexW3128386380

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.