Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35619069›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Maternity care during COVID-19: a qualitative evidence synthesis of women's and maternity care providers' views and experiences.

Sarah Jane Flaherty, Hannah Delaney, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Valerie Smith

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.4field-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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Experiences of disrespect and abuse during childbirth in the World Health Organization European region: A mixed-method study among 22 countries.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah Jane FlahertySchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Hannah DelaneySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Dublin Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Karen Matvienko-SikarSchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Valerie SmithSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Dublin Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. smithv1@tcd.ie.
University College Cork · IEOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IETrinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs COVID-19 continued to impact society and health, maternity care, as with many other healthcare sectors across the globe, experienced tumultuous changes. These changes have the potential to considerably impact on the experience of maternity care. To gain insight and understanding of the experience of maternity care during COVID-19, from the perspectives of women and maternity care providers, we undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis (QES).

methodsThe population of interest for the QES were pregnant and postpartum women, and maternity care providers, who provided qualitative data on their experiences of maternity care during COVID-19. The electronic databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane COVID study register were systematically searched from 01 Jan 2020 to 13 June 2021. The methodological quality of the included studies was appraised using a modified version of the quality assessment tool, based on 12-criteria, designed by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information coordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre). Data were extracted by two reviewers independently and synthesised using the Thomas and Harden framework. Confidence in the findings was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual).

resultsFifty records relating to 48 studies, involving 9,348 women and 2,538 maternity care providers, were included in the QES. The methodological quality of the studies varied from four studies meeting all 12 quality criteria to two studies meeting one quality criterion only. The synthesis revealed eight prominent themes. Five of these reflected women's experiences: 1) Altered maternity care (women), 2) COVID-related restrictions, 3) Infection prevention and risk, 4) 'the lived reality' - navigating support systems, and 5) Interactions with maternity services. Three themes reflected maternity care providers' experiences: 6) Altered maternity care (providers), 7) Professional and personal impact, and 8) Broader structural impact. Confidence in the findings was high or moderate.

conclusionAlthough some positive experiences were identified, overall, this QES reveals that maternity care during COVID-19 was negatively experienced by both women and maternity care providers. The pandemic and associated changes evoked an array of emotive states for both populations, many of which have the potential to impact on future health and wellbeing. Resource and care planning to mitigate medium- and longer-term adverse sequelae are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021232684.

Indexed as

COVID-19Maternal Health ServicesObstetricsFemaleHumansPregnancyQualitative ResearchCorona virusCOVID-19Maternity careMaternity care providersQualitative evidence synthesisSystematic reviewWomen's experiences

Identifiers

PMID35619069
PMCPMC9132752
OpenAlexW4281560050

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.