Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40701595›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Identifying fundamental goals of childbirth care for women with higher body weight in Swiss maternity care: an embedded mixed methods multi-stakeholder study.

Carmen Wyss, Jennifer Inauen, Judit Lienert, Evelyne M Aubry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Carmen WyssApplied Research and Development, Division of Midwifery, Department of Health Professions, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland carmen.wyss@bfh.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2384-8114
Jennifer InauenDepartment of Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7884-3222
Judit LienertDecision Analysis Group, Department of Environmental Social Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Duebendorf, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1925-3895
Evelyne M AubryApplied Research and Development, Division of Midwifery, Department of Health Professions, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3861-0694

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe first objective of the study was to identify fundamental goals of childbirth care for women with higher body weight to inform decision-making processes by drawing on multi-stakeholder insights. The second objective included evaluating the method used to support these stakeholders in generating a more diverse set of fundamental goals.

designUsing an embedded mixed methods design, we engaged key stakeholders in two group workshops and 11 individual interviews to identify goals considered fundamentally important for achieving the best possible childbirth care. Participants individually brainstormed childbirth care goals, selected additional goals from a pre-established masterlist and discussed them. Thereafter, participants rated the goals' perceived importance for decision-making on a Likert scale. We thematically analyzed the goals and mapped them onto a means-ends network to identify and refine a set of fundamental goals. Methodological evaluations involved descriptive statistics and non-parametric testing.

settingSwiss maternity care.

participants21 stakeholders, including seven women with a preconceptional body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m

resultsWe identified eight fundamental goals of childbirth care: low maternal and neonatal complication rates, physiological childbirth processes, positive initiation of bonding and breastfeeding, positive psychosocial care experience, low physical strain for care providers, low resource use in care setting, and low direct costs of childbirth care. Individual participants generated more diverse fundamental goals on average by combining individual brainstorming with goal selection from a masterlist than by brainstorming alone. A theoretical maximum of six participants captured all eight fundamental goals.

conclusionsThe fundamental goals provide a framework for benchmarking decisions to improve childbirth care for women with higher body weight. Additionally, individual brainstorming combined with goal selection from a masterlist appears to be a useful method for generating a diverse set of fundamental goals in a healthcare context, even with relatively few participants.

Indexed as

Body WeightDelivery, ObstetricGoalsMaternal Health ServicesParturitionAdultBody Mass IndexDecision MakingFemaleHumansMidwiferyPregnancyQualitative ResearchStakeholder ParticipationSwitzerlandBody Mass IndexDecision MakingMethodsObesityOBSTETRICSQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID40701595
PMCPMC12306249

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.