Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39669111›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in global women's health2024

Healthcare providers' experiences of maternity care service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: a follow-up systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.

Tisha Dasgupta, Emily Bousfield, Yosha Pathak, Gillian Horgan, Lili Peterson, Hiten D Mistry, Milly Wilson, Meg Hill, Valerie Smith, Harriet Boulding and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in global women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

18 authors.

Tisha Dasgupta *Department of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Emily Bousfield *Department of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Yosha PathakGKT School of Medical Education, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gillian HorganDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Lili PetersonDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Hiten D MistryDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Milly WilsonDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Meg HillThe RESILIENT Study Patient & Public Involvement & Engagement Advisory Group, United Kingdom.
Valerie SmithSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, College of Health and Agricultural Sciences, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Harriet BouldingThe Policy Institute, Faculty of Social Science & Public Policy, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kayleigh S SheenDepartment of Social Sciences, College of Health, Science and Society, University of the West of England Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Aricca D Van CittersThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.
Eugene C NelsonThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, United States.
Emma L DuncanDepartment of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter von DadelszenDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
RESILIENT Study Group
Sergio A SilverioDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Laura A MageeDepartment of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Problem and background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was substantial reconfiguration of maternity care services, affecting both users and healthcare providers (HCPs), in the United Kingdom (UK) and globally. Aim: To further our understanding of the impact of maternity service reconfigurations in the UK, from the perspective of maternity HCPs. Methods: Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane COVID Study Register were searched for relevant studies reporting qualitative data from the UK, published in English between 01 June 2021 and 30 September 2023. Qualitative data on HCPs' experiences of maternity care reconfiguration during the pandemic were extracted from 15 studies. Data were subjected to thematic synthesis according to key service reconfigurations. Results: Nine themes were identified: Discussion and conclusion: The review findings highlight HCPs' views of the need for greater inclusion of partners, choice of virtual or in-person care for women and birthing people; and a need for co-designed services for future policy-making.

Indexed as

COVID-19healthcare professionalsmaternity servicesqualitative researchsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39669111
PMCPMC11634857

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.