Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962588›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?

Billie F Bradford, Alyce N Wilson, Anayda Portela, Fran McConville, Cristina Fernandez Turienzo, Caroline S E Homer

Full text readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Exploring Women's Perceived Quality of Antenatal Care: A Cross-Sectional Study in The Netherlands.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  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

6 authors.

Billie F BradfordMaternal, Child, and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Alyce N WilsonMaternal, Child, and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anayda PortelaDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6368-1585
Fran McConvilleDepartment of Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
Cristina Fernandez TurienzoDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.
Caroline S E HomerMaternal, Child, and Adolescent Health Program, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7454-3011

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systems of care that provide midwifery care and services through a continuity of care model have positive health outcomes for women and newborns. We conducted a scoping review to understand the global implementation of these models, asking the questions: where, how, by whom and for whom are midwifery continuity of care models implemented? Using a scoping review framework, we searched electronic and grey literature databases for reports in any language between January 2012 and January 2022, which described current and recent trials, implementation or scaling-up of midwifery continuity of care studies or initiatives in high-, middle- and low-income countries. After screening, 175 reports were included, the majority (157, 90%) from high-income countries (HICs) and fewer (18, 10%) from low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). There were 163 unique studies including eight (4.9%) randomised or quasi-randomised trials, 58 (38.5%) qualitative, 53 (32.7%) quantitative (cohort, cross sectional, descriptive, observational), 31 (19.0%) survey studies, and three (1.9%) health economics analyses. There were 10 practice-based accounts that did not include research. Midwives led almost all continuity of care models. In HICs, the most dominant model was where small groups of midwives provided care for designated women, across the antenatal, childbirth and postnatal care continuum. This was mostly known as caseload midwifery or midwifery group practice. There was more diversity of models in low- to middle-income countries. Of the 175 initiatives described, 31 (18%) were implemented for women, newborns and families from priority or vulnerable communities. With the exception of New Zealand, no countries have managed to scale-up continuity of midwifery care at a national level. Further implementation studies are needed to support countries planning to transition to midwifery continuity of care models in all countries to determine optimal model types and strategies to achieve sustainable scale-up at a national level.

Identifiers

PMID36962588
PMCPMC10021789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read208
identifiers read6
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.