Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37284485›Full record

ReviewWomen's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)2023

Rural Prenatal Care by Nurse Practitioners: A Narrative Review.

Monica Kneller, Edith Pituskin, Nicole L Tegg, Colleen M Norris

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Monica KnellerFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Edith PituskinFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Nicole L TeggFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Colleen M NorrisFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Rural Canadian populations face many challenges due to their geographical isolation, including inaccessible and inequitable primary health care. Specifically, pregnant women are at risk of not receiving prenatal care (PNC) due to physical and social barriers. Inadequate PNC can have detrimental effects on both maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Nurse practitioners (NPs) are an essential group of alternative primary care providers who can provide specialized care, including PNC, to these underserved populations. Objective: The purpose of this narrative review was to identify existing NP-led rural PNC programs in other health care systems to support maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: A systematic search was performed to identify articles published between 2002 and 2022 on CINAHL (EBSCO host) and MEDLINE (OVID). Literature was excluded if (1) the context was based in urban centers; (2) the study focused on specialized obstetrical/gynecological-based care; or (3) the study was published in a language other than English. The literature was assessed and synthesized into a narrative review. Results: The initial search identified 34 potentially relevant articles. Five broad themes were identified, including (1) barriers to care; (2) mobile health clinics; (3) collaborative or tiered models of care; (4) telemedicine; and (5) NPs as essential primary care providers. Conclusions: The introduction of a collaborative NP-led approach to rural Canadian settings has the potential to address barriers to PNC and provide efficient, equitable, and inclusive health care.

Indexed as

Canadanarrative reviewnurse practitionerprenatal carerural

Identifiers

PMID37284485
PMCPMC10240310

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.