ReviewPloS one2025
An integrative review of how midwives are screening and assessing for trauma in women within perinatal services.
Review in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supporting sexual assault disclosure: a qualitative study of women's experiences and preferences in gynaecological and midwifery care in the Netherlands.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- Prenatal clinicians' perspectives on trauma-informed care competency and training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a growing body of literature on the significance of trauma and abuse in the perinatal period but despite this, trauma exposure and abuse are often not recognised in maternity care settings. Evidence indicates that women experiencing mental distress during the perinatal period are frequently unidentified or inadequately supported. The purpose of this study was to conduct an integrative review on how midwives screen, assess, and respond to women with trauma histories in the perinatal period and to identify the challenges in providing trauma discussions, screening and assessment.
methodsThis integrative review followed Whittemore and Knafl's five-stage framework as it facilitates the inclusion of different methodological approaches to experimental research. Five electronic databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ASSIA, and Web of Science), reference and citation lists were systematically searched from inception with no date, language or geographical limiters set owing to a dearth of research in this subject area. This review was performed and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. The findings were analysed and synthesised using narrative synthesis.
findingsTwenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were synthesised using narrative synthesis. Four main themes were identified: 1) Midwives difficulties in asking and discussing interpersonal trauma and abuse and their instinctive use of their observations skills to elicit information; 2) Screening tools to elicit history of interpersonal trauma; 3) Midwife's response to interpersonal discussions; 4) Training on 'daring to ask the questions' and Support on 'what should I do now'. DISCUSSION: Our findings demonstrate a deficit in trauma discussion, screening and assessment of trauma within the perinatal care, domestic violence being the exception. Interpersonal trauma is a significant public health concern that if left unrecognized may increase morbidity and mortality in both mothers and newborns. This study makes recommendations for urgent streamlined trauma discussions and specific training and supervision on trauma-informed care for all healthcare professions in their perinatal role using a whole systems approach.
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.