Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37878625›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

Midwives', obstetricians', and nurses' perspectives of humanised care during pregnancy and childbirth for women classified as high risk in high income countries: A mixed methods systematic review.

Mary Curtin, Margaret Murphy, Eileen Savage, Michelle O'Driscoll, Patricia Leahy-Warren

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Mary CurtinSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-8518-0394
Margaret MurphySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Eileen SavageSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Michelle O'DriscollSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Patricia Leahy-WarrenSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women classified as 'high risk' or 'complicated' in pregnancy and childbirth have increased difficulty in accessing humanised care/humanisation in childbirth due to perceptions that this approach rejects the use of intervention and/or technology. Humanised care recognises the psychological and physical needs of women in pregnancy and birth. A mixed methods systematic review using a convergent segregated approach was undertaken using the Joanne Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. The objective of the review was to identify the presence of humanisation for women with high risk pregnancy and/or childbirth in high income countries. Studies were included if they measured humanisation and/or explored the perspectives of midwives, obstetricians, or nurses on humanisation for women classified as having a high-risk or complicated pregnancy or childbirth in a high income country. Qualitative data were analysed using a meta-aggregative approach and a narrative synthesis was completed for the quantitative data. All studies were assessed for their methodological quality using the MMAT tool. Four databases were searched, and nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1617 participants from nine countries were included. Three qualitative findings were synthesised, and a narrative synthesis of quantitative data was completed. The integration of qualitative and quantitative data identified complimentary findings on: (i) the importance of developing a harmonised relationship with women; (ii) increased time counselling women on their choices; and (iii) fear of professional reputational damage if caring outside of protocols. Negotiating with women outside of protocols may have a wider impact on the professional than first thought. Understanding how healthcare professionals individualise care for women at risk in labour requires further investigation.

Indexed as

MidwiferyNursesDelivery, ObstetricDeveloped CountriesFemaleHumansObstetriciansPregnancyQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID37878625
PMCPMC10599554

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.