Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33711957›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2021

The key components of a successful model of midwifery-led continuity of carer, without continuity at birth: findings from a qualitative implementation evaluation.

N Dharni, H Essex, M J Bryant, A Cronin de Chavez, K Willan, D Farrar, T Bywater, J Dickerson, Better Start Bradford Innovation Hub

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

N DharniRoyal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, London, UK. ndharni@rcog.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6680-3661
H EssexDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
M J BryantDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
A Cronin de ChavezNuffield Centre for International Health and Development, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
K WillanBetter Start Bradford Innovation Hub, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, York, UK.
D FarrarMaternal and Infant Health, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
T BywaterDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
J DickersonBetter Start Bradford Innovation Hub, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, York, UK.
Better Start Bradford Innovation Hub
Bradford Royal Infirmary · GBRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent UK maternity policy changes recommend that a named midwife supports women throughout their pregnancy, birth and postnatal care. Whilst many studies report high levels of satisfaction amongst women receiving, and midwives providing, this level of continuity of carer, there are concerns some midwives may experience burnout and stress. In this study, we present a qualitative evaluation of the implementation of a midwife-led continuity of carer model that excluded continuity of carer at the birth.

methodsUnderpinned by the Conceptual Model for Implementation Fidelity, our evaluation explored the implementation, fidelity, reach and satisfaction of the continuity of carer model. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with midwives (n = 7) and women (n = 15) from continuity of carer team. To enable comparisons between care approaches, midwives (n = 7) and women (n = 10) from standard approach teams were also interviewed. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsFor continuity of carer team midwives, manageable caseloads, extended appointment times, increased team stability, and flexible working patterns facilitated both care provided and midwives' job satisfaction. Both continuity of carer and standard approach midwives reported challenges in providing postnatal continuity given the unpredictable timing of labour and birth. Time constraints, inadequate staffing and lack of administrative support were reported as additional barriers to implementing continuity of carer within standard approach teams. Women reported continuity was integral to building trust with midwives, encouraged them to disclose mental health issues and increased their confidence in making birth choices.

conclusionsOur evaluation highlighted the successful implementation of a continuity of carer model for ante and postnatal care. Despite exclusion of the birth element in the model, both women and midwives expressed high levels of satisfaction in comparison to women and midwives within the standard approach. Implementation successes were largely due to structural and resource factors, particularly the combination of additional time and smaller caseloads of women. However, these resources are not widely available within the resources of maternity unit budgets. Future research should further explore whether a continuity of carer model focusing on antenatal and postnatal care delivery is a feasible and sustainable model of care for all women.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareMaternal Health ServicesMidwiferyPatient PreferencePerinatal CareAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansModels, OrganizationalNurse MidwivesOrganizational InnovationParturitionPregnancyQualitative ResearchSocial SupportContinuity of carerImplementationMidwiferyPregnancyQualitative

Identifiers

PMID33711957
PMCPMC7955626
OpenAlexW3134122243

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.