Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39979052›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2025

Understanding how midwife-led continuity of care can be implemented and under what circumstances: a realist review.

Renate Simmelink, Elise Neppelenbroek, Anneke Pouwels, Nadine van der Lee, Eva Pajkrt, Kirsten A Ziesemer, Hanneke W Harmsen van der Vliet-Torij, Corine J M Verhoeven, Ank de Jonge, Marianne Nieuwenhuijze

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Exploring Women's Perceived Quality of Antenatal Care: A Cross-Sectional Study in The Netherlands.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  8. 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

10 authors.

Renate SimmelinkMidwifery Science, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands r.simmelink@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4300-4461
Elise NeppelenbroekMidwifery Science, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1500-0655
Anneke PouwelsResearch Centre for Midwifery Science, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nadine van der LeeObstetrics and Gynaecology, Spaarne Gasthuis Haarlem Zuid, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Eva PajkrtObstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kirsten A ZiesemerVrije Universiteit Amsterdam, University Library, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hanneke W Harmsen van der Vliet-TorijObstetrics and Birth Care, Hogeschool Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Corine J M VerhoevenObstetrics and Gynecology, Maxima Medisch Centrum Vrouw Moeder Kind-centrum, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
Ank de JongePrimary and Long-term Care, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Marianne NieuwenhuijzeResearch Centre for Midwifery Science, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo understand how and under what circumstances midwife-led continuity of care (MLCC) can be implemented in high-income countries.

designA realist review was conducted to examine interactions between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes.

methodsAn initial programme theory described a hypothesis of how MLCC might be implemented successfully. Literature from a systematic search on the implementation of MLCC was synthesised and supplemented with unstructured searches to identify literature that reinforced the emerging concepts. The synthesis was an iterative process, endorsed in consultation with stakeholders, leading to a refined programme theory.

resultsA total of 45 documents were included. The mechanisms identified can be grouped around macrolevel challenges, leadership, role ambiguity and conflict, and personal and professional boundaries. Despite strong evidence supporting MLCC, diverse stakeholder interests and power dynamics hinder its implementation. Implementing MLCC disrupts established roles and power structures, creating uncertainty and anxiety at all levels. To successfully navigate healthcare providers through the transition, both formal and informal leaders must demonstrate the courage and vision to challenge existing norms.

conclusionsRealist methodology allowed the identification of mechanisms that often remain unnoticed but significantly impact the implementation of MLCC. Concrete policies and guidelines are essential to ensure consistency in care delivery. Collaborative efforts and a shared philosophy among all stakeholders, combined with strong leadership that builds trust and addresses anxiety, can create a supportive environment for MLCC implementation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023446437.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareMidwiferyDeveloped CountriesFemaleHumansLeadershipPregnancyMidwiferyOBSTETRICSQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID39979052
PMCPMC11842984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.