Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37930253›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2023

Putting co-creation into practice: lessons learned from developing a midwife-led quality improvement intervention.

Johanna Blomgren, Michael B Wells, Kerstin Erlandsson, Dinah Amongin, Lydia Kabiri, Helena Lindgren

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05237375 (MIDWIZE - Strengthening Midwives to Implement and Sustain Quality Improvements to Optimise Maternity Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

NCT05237375 unknown statusnot on this map

MIDWIZE - Strengthening Midwives to Implement and Sustain Quality Improvements to Optimise Maternity Care: A Longitudinal Observational Study in Uganda

TypeobservationalSponsorKarolinska InstitutetRan2022 to 2025Enrolled1,000ConditionsMidwiferyArmsThe MIDWIZE model
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Johanna BlomgrenDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7415-2571
Michael B WellsDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7453-306X
Kerstin ErlandssonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6910-7047
Dinah AmonginDepartment of Health Policy Planning and Management, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0002-1420-005X
Lydia KabiriDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, School of Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Helena LindgrenDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4875-1407
Karolinska Institutet · SEMakerere University · UGDalarna University · SESophiahemmet University College · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrating evidence-based midwifery practices improves healthcare quality for women and newborns, but an evidence-to-practice gap exists. Co-created quality improvement initiatives led by midwives could bridge this gap, prevent resource waste and ensure intervention relevance. However, how to co-create a midwife-led quality improvement intervention has not been scientifically explored.

objectiveThe objective of this study is to describe the co-creation process and explore the needs and determinants of a midwife-led quality improvement targeting evidence-based midwifery practices.

methodsA qualitative deductive approach using the Consolidated Framework for Advancing Implementation Science was employed. An analysis matrix based on the framework was developed, and the data were coded according to categories. Data were gathered from interviews, focus group discussions, observations and workshops. New mothers and birth companions (

resultsThe co-creation process of the midwife-led Quality Improvement intervention took place in four stages. Firstly, core elements of the intervention were established, featuring a group of midwife champions leading a quality improvement initiative using a train-the-trainers approach. Secondly, the intervention needs, context and determinants were explored, which showed knowledge and skills gaps, a lack of shared goals among staff, and limited resources. However, there was clear relevance, compatibility, and mission alignment for a midwife-led quality improvement at all levels. Thirdly, during co-creation workshops with new mothers and companions, the consensus was to prioritise improved intrapartum support, while workshops with midwives identified enhancing the use of birth positions and perineal protection as key focus areas for the forthcoming Quality Improvement intervention. Lastly, the findings guided intervention strategies, including peer-assisted learning, using existing structures, developing educational material, and building stakeholder relationships.

conclusionsThis study provides a practical example of a co-creation process for a midwife-led quality improvement intervention, which can be relevant in different maternity care settings.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesMidwiferyObstetricsFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareCo-creationevidence-to-practisematernal healthmidwiferyquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID37930253
PMCPMC10629418
OpenAlexW4388411400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.