Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34215539›Full record

ArticleWomen and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives2022

New Zealand maternity and midwifery services and the COVID-19 response: A systematic scoping review.

Susan Crowther, Robyn Maude, Ivy Y Zhao, Billie Bradford, Andrea Gilkison

Open access · greenAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. New Zealand maternity and midwifery services and the COVID-19 response: A systematic scoping review.Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives · 2022
    Article
  3. COVID-19 Special Issue - The Impact of COVID-19 on women, babies, midwives, and midwifery care.Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives · 2022
    Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Susan CrowtherFaculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Center for Midwifery and Women's Health Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: Susan.Crowther@aut.ac.nz.
Robyn MaudeSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Practice, Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Electronic address: Robyn.Maude@vuw.ac.nz.
Ivy Y ZhaoWHO Collaborating Centre for Community Health Services, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Electronic address: yan-ivy.zhao@polyu.edu.hk.
Billie BradfordSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Practice, Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Electronic address: Billie.Bradford@vuw.ac.nz.
Andrea GilkisonFaculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Center for Midwifery and Women's Health Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: andrea.gilkison@aut.ac.nz.
Auckland University of Technology · NZVictoria University of Wellington · NZHong Kong Polytechnic University · HK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

problemCOVID-19 guidance from professional and health organisations created uncertainty leading to professional and personal stress impacting on midwives providing continuity of care in New Zealand (NZ). The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in massive amounts of international and national information and guidance. This guidance was often conflicting and not suited to New Zealand midwifery.

aimTo examine and map the national and international guidance and information provided to midwifery regarding COVID-19 and foreground learnt lessons for future similar crises.

methodsA systematic scoping review informed by Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework. A range of sources from grey and empirical literature was identified and 257 sources included.

findingsFour categories were identified and discussed: (1) guidance for provision of maternity care in the community; (2) guidance for provision of primary labour and birth care; (3) Guidance for midwifery care to women/wāhine with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 infection, including screening processes and management of neonates of infected women/wāhine (4) Guidance for midwives on protecting self and own families and whānau (extended family) from COVID-19 exposure.

conclusionGuidance was mainly targeted and tailored for hospital-based services. This was at odds with the NZ context, where primary continuity of care underpins practice. It is evident that those providing continuity of care constantly needed to navigate an evolving situation to mitigate interruptions and restrictions to midwifery care, often without fully knowing the personal risk to themselves and their own families. A key message is the need for a single source of evidence-based guidance, regularly updated and timestamped to show where advice changes over time.

Indexed as

COVID-19Maternal Health ServicesMidwiferyFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornNew ZealandPandemicsPregnancyCOVID-19GuidanceLockdownMidwivesNew ZealandPractice

Identifiers

PMID34215539
PMCPMC8179056
OpenAlexW3166494129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.