ArticleBMJ open2024
Exploring the landscape of Canadian midwifery research: strengths, gaps and priorities - results of a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Developing a Canadian midwifery research priority framework: a Delphi consensus study.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe 2014 Lancet Series on Midwifery developed the Quality of Maternal and Newborn Care (QMNC) framework outlining care needed for all childbearing people and newborns. Furthermore, this was a global call to action to invest in research capacity building. While evidence-informed care is a cornerstone of midwifery practice, there has been limited exploration of how Canadian midwifery research priorities within the Canadian context align with the global framework. In response to the call from the Lancet series, this scoping review aimed to investigate the current strengths and gaps of midwifery research in Canada. Secondarily, our goal was to map existing Canadian evidence to the QMNC framework to guide future priority setting and build research capacity.
designA scoping review. DATA SOURCES: We searched nine electronic databases for articles up to 2022, inclusive: AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine), CINAHL, EconLit, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EmCare and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included research conducted by (a) Canadian midwives on Canadian and non-Canadian populations, (b) international midwives on Canadian midwifery populations or (c) non-midwife researchers on Canadian midwifery populations. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We analysed data using categories from the Lancet Series' QMNC framework. At least two independent reviewers conducted screening and data extraction.
resultsWe identified 590 articles for inclusion. Most Canadian midwifery research is related to organisation of care and care providers, clinical practice categories including promoting normal physiological processes during pregnancy, research pertaining to prenatal and intrapartum periods, and policy. Research gaps included neonatal and postpartum outcomes, midwifery education, and midwifery values and philosophy. Lastly, there were gaps in the number of randomised trials and systematic reviews, which may impact guidance of clinical decision-making.
conclusionsThere has been an exponential increase in midwifery-led research in Canada. Assessment against the QMNC framework has highlighted gaps related to research conduct, clinical and non-clinical research focuses. Identifying midwifery research priorities is an important next step of consolidating Canadian research evidence. Future directions may include collaboration with midwifery stakeholders to prioritise research topics related to improving care for clients, strengthening the profession and building research capacity.
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.