Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33952309›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2021

Training and expertise in undertaking assisted vaginal delivery (AVD): a mixed methods systematic review of practitioners views and experiences.

Claire Feeley, Nicola Crossland, Ana Pila Betran, Andrew Weeks, Soo Downe, Carol Kingdon

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Engaging women to set the research agenda for assisted vaginal birth.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Claire FeeleySchool of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK. cfeeley@uclan.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8013-0352
Nicola CrosslandSchool of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Ana Pila BetranDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organisation, 1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Andrew WeeksSanyu Research Unit, Liverpool Women's Hospital Women and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L87SS, UK.
Soo DowneSchool of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
Carol KingdonSchool of Community Health and Midwifery, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring childbirth, complications may arise which necessitate an expedited delivery of the fetus. One option is instrumental assistance (forceps or a vacuum-cup), which, if used with skill and sensitivity, can improve maternal/neonatal outcomes. This review aimed to understand the core competencies and expertise required for skilled use in AVD in conjunction with reviewing potential barriers and facilitators to gaining competency and expertise, from the point of view of maternity care practitioners, funders and policy makers.

methodsA mixed methods systematic review was undertaken in five databases. Inclusion criteria were primary studies reporting views, opinions, perspectives and experiences of the target group in relation to the expertise, training, behaviours and competencies required for optimal AVD, barriers and facilitators to achieving practitioner competencies, and to the implementation of appropriate training. Quality appraisal was carried out on included studies. A mixed-methods convergent synthesis was carried out, and the findings were subjected to GRADE-CERQual assessment of confidence.

results31 papers, reporting on 27 studies and published 1985-2020 were included. Studies included qualitative designs (3), mixed methods (3), and quantitative surveys (21). The majority (23) were from high-income countries, two from upper-middle income countries, one from a lower-income country: one survey included 111 low-middle countries. Confidence in the 10 statements of findings was mostly low, with one exception (moderate confidence). The review found that AVD competency comprises of inter-related skill sets including non-technical skills (e.g. behaviours), general clinical skills; and specific technical skills associated with particular instrument use. We found that practitioners needed and welcomed additional specific training, where a combination of teaching methods were used, to gain skills and confidence in this field. Clinical mentorship, and observing others confidently using the full range of instruments, was also required, and valued, to develop competency and expertise in AVD. However, concerns regarding poor outcomes and litigation were also raised.

conclusionAccess to specific AVD training, using a combination of teaching methods. Complements, but does not replace, close clinical mentorship from experts who are positive about AVD, and opportunities to practice emerging AVD skills with supportive supervision. Further research is required to ascertain effective modalities for wider training, education, and supportive supervision for optimal AVD use.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesCanadaClinical CompetenceCommunity Health WorkersDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLabor PresentationPregnancyAssisted vaginal birthAssisted vaginal deliveryCompetencePractitionersTraining

Identifiers

PMID33952309
PMCPMC8097768

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.