ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2023
Midwives' perspectives of intravenous fluid management and fluid balance documentation in labour: A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis study.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating a single-dose intravenous iron therapy (ferric carboxymaltose) for maternal anaemia in Nigeria: Insights from stakeholder engagement.Journal of public health in Africa · 2026Article
- Association between intravenous fluids during labor and primary postpartum hemorrhage: A retrospective cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Midwives' perspectives of intravenous fluid management and fluid balance documentation in labour: A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe current practice, examine the influences and explore barriers and facilitators to accurate documentation, for the administration of intravenous fluids during labour.
designA descriptive qualitative study was performed.
methodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with Registered Midwives working across Australia. Midwives were recruited via email and social media advertisements. A maximum variation sampling strategy was used to identify potential participants. Interview questions explored four main areas: (i) understanding of indications for IV fluids in labour; (ii) identification of current practice; (iii) barriers to documentation and (iv) benefits and complications of IV fluid administration. Reflexive thematic analysis of recorded-transcribed interviews was conducted.
resultsEleven midwives were interviewed. Clinical practice variation across Australia was recognized. Midwives reported a potential risk of harm for women and babies and a current lack of evidence, education and clinical guidance contributing to uncertainty around the use of IV fluids in labour. Overall, eight major themes were identified: (i) A variable clinical practice; (ii) Triggers and habits; (iii) Workplace and professional culture; (iv) Foundational knowledge; (v) Perception of risk; (vi) Professional standards and regulations; (vii) The importance of monitoring maternal fluid balance and (viii) barriers and facilitators to fluid balance documentation.
conclusionThere was widespread clinical variation identified and midwives reported a potential risk of harm. The major themes identified will inform future quantitative research examining the impact of IV fluids in labour. IMPACT: The implications of this research are important and potentially far-reaching. The administration of IV fluids to women in labour is a common clinical intervention. However, there is limited evidence available to guide practice. This study highlights the need for greater education and evidence examining maternal and neonatal outcomes to provide improved clinical guidance.
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.