Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36761447›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2023

Development of a tool to identify barriers and enablers to practice innovation in midwifery: A participatory action research study.

Sara D Davis, Sara Bayes, Sadie Geraghty

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of midwifery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sara D DavisSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
Sara BayesSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
Sadie GeraghtySchool of Nursing, Midwifery, Health Sciences and Physiotherapy, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Australia.
Australian Catholic University · AUEdith Cowan University · AUThe University of Notre Dame Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTransferring research evidence into midwifery practice is fraught with challenges and obstacles. Implementation tools can streamline the process and are most effective when they are discipline-specific; however, there are currently no midwifery specific implementation tools. The aim of this study was to develop a midwifery specific tool to identify barriers and enablers to evidence-informed practice change within the clinical setting.

methodsParticipatory action research methodology was employed to ensure potential end-users contributed to content and format of the tool. Purposeful sampling ensured participants were selected from a range of midwifery practice settings in Western Australia and the United Kingdom. Data were collected through stakeholder advisory groups (SAGs) and online surveys.

resultsTen midwives participated in this project. Consultation occurred through face-to-face SAG meetings and online surveys until consensus was reached among participants about the content, format, and functionality of the end product which we called the 'Midwifery Tool for Change' (MT4C).

conclusionsTo our knowledge, the MT4C is the first readiness for change context assessment tool specific to midwifery practice settings. Evaluation of the MT4C in real-world practice change implementation initiatives will enable further refinement of the tool.

Indexed as

change managementimplementationmidwiferyreadiness for changetool development

Identifiers

PMID36761447
PMCPMC9885374
OpenAlexW4318477989

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.