ArticleBMJ quality & safety2024
Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telemedicine as a "digital umbilical" for maternal and reproductive healthcare: a qualitative study from health and wellness centers in rural West Bengal, India.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Virtual Maternity Care During Pregnancy: A Metasynthesis of the Qualitative Literature on Women's Experiences.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- Professional perspectives on barriers to accessing maternity care in England: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- A mapping survey of digital clinical consultations in maternity care in England.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Home blood pressure monitoring and mobile health application practices among pregnant persons with and at risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.Pregnancy hypertension · 2025Article
- Measuring the positive potential value of birth in economic evaluation of perinatal interventions.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
- Self-monitoring blood pressure in pregnancy: evaluation of women's experiences of the BUMP trials.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Optimising digital clinical consultations in maternity care: a realist review and implementation principles.BMJ open · 2024Review
- Preliminary findings on the experiences of care for women who suffered early pregnancy losses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Developing initial programme theories for a realist synthesis on digital clinical consultations in maternity care: contributions from stakeholder involvement.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2024Article
- Healthcare providers' experiences of maternity care service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: a follow-up systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Review
- Freedom for some, but not for Mum: the reproductive injustice associated with pandemic 'Freedom Day' for perinatal women in the United Kingdom.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Telehealth in antenatal care: recent insights and advances.BMC medicine · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality antenatal care is important for ensuring optimal birth outcomes and reducing risks of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the usual provision of antenatal care, with much care shifting to remote forms of provision. We aimed to characterise what quality would look like for remote antenatal care from the perspectives of those who use, provide and organise it.
methodsThis UK-wide study involved interviews and an online survey inviting free-text responses with: those who were or had been pregnant since March 2020; maternity professionals and managers of maternity services and system-level stakeholders. Recruitment used network-based approaches, professional and community networks and purposively selected hospitals. Analysis of interview transcripts was based on the constant comparative method. Free-text survey responses were analysed using a coding framework developed by researchers.
findingsParticipants included 106 pregnant women and 105 healthcare professionals and managers/stakeholders. Analysis enabled generation of a framework of the domains of quality that appear to be most relevant to stakeholders in remote antenatal care: efficiency and timeliness; effectiveness; safety; accessibility; equity and inclusion; person-centredness and choice and continuity. Participants reported that remote care was not straightforwardly positive or negative across these domains. Care that was more transactional in nature was identified as more suitable for remote modalities, but remote care was also seen as having potential to undermine important aspects of trusting relationships and continuity, to amplify or create new forms of structural inequality and to create possible risks to safety.
conclusionsThis study offers a provisional framework that can help in structuring thinking, policy and practice. By outlining the range of domains relevant to remote antenatal care, this framework is likely to be of value in guiding policy, practice and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.