SynthesisBMJ open2023
Qualitative systematic review of general practitioners' (GPs') views and experiences of providing postnatal care.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postpartum check-ups with general practitioners in Norway: a cross-sectional survey of attendance, content and patient satisfaction.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Factors Associated With Contraceptive Initiation and Use Among Women Who Have Given Birth in the Last Year: Findings From the 2023 Women's Reproductive Health Survey.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Article
- Australian GPs' experiences, practices, and perspectives on postpartum care, contraception, and breastfeeding.Family practice · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDevelop an understanding of the views and experiences of general practitioners (GPs) about their role in postnatal care, including barriers and facilitators to good care, and timing and content of planned postnatal checks.
designQualitative systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO from January 1990 to September 2021. Grey literature and guideline references from National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, WHO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Papers reporting qualitative data on views and experiences of GPs about postnatal care, including discrete clinical conditions in the postnatal period. Papers were screened independently by two reviewers and disputes resolved by a third reviewer. QUALITY APPRAISAL: The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist was used to appraise studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Thematic synthesis involving line-by-line coding, generation of descriptive then analytical themes was conducted by the review team. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model was used to develop analytical themes.
results20 reports from 18 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were published from 2008 to 2021, reporting on 469 GPs. 13 were from UK or Australia. Some also reported views of non-GP participants. The clinical focus of studies varied, for example: perinatal mental health, postnatal contraception. Five themes were generated, four mapped to COM-B: psychological capability, physical opportunity, social opportunity and motivation. One theme was separate from the COM-B model: content and timing of postnatal checks. Strong influences were in physical and social opportunity, with time and organisation of services being heavily represented. These factors sometimes influenced findings in the motivation theme.
conclusionsGPs perceived their role in postnatal care as a positive opportunity for relationship building and health promotion. Addressing organisational barriers could impact positively on GPs' motivation to provide the best care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 268982.
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.