Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41234673›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2025

A balancing act: Primary care midwives screening for fetal growth restriction- a focus group study.

Mariëlle van Roekel, Dominique Kramer, Ank de Jonge, Arie Franx, Jens Henrichs, Corine J Verhoeven

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Mariëlle van RoekelAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Midwifery Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dominique KramerAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Midwifery Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ank de JongeAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Midwifery Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Arie FranxDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jens HenrichsAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Midwifery Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Corine J VerhoevenAmsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Midwifery Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Fetal growth restriction in low-risk pregnancies often remains undetected, despite its association with perinatal morbidity and mortality. While technical improvements in screening have been widely studied, little is known about how autonomous midwives in primary care settings navigate screening for fetal growth restriction in daily practice. Aim: To better understand how midwives in low-risk settings navigate the screening process for fetal growth restriction, and to identify opportunities for improvement. Methods: An interpretative qualitative study was conducted based on five online focus groups with 21 participants, including midwives and senior midwifery students across the Netherlands. Reflexive thematic analysis was carried out by a multidisciplinary team. Findings: Midwives described screening for fetal growth restriction as a balancing act shaped by diagnostic uncertainty, ambiguous guidelines, interprofessional mistrust and moral responsibility. Five themes were identified: managing screening uncertainty, adapting to women's care needs, coping with a lack of trust in collaboration with secondary care, balancing tradition and innovation within professional identity, and maintaining professional confidence. Conclusion: Screening for fetal growth restriction is not only a technical act but also a relational and value-laden practice. Midwives' practices reflect a continuous negotiation between societal reliance on technology, the limitations of current tools and guidelines, interprofessional tensions, and the relational and moral responsibilities of care. Improving screening therefore requires more than technical solutions: it calls for clear guidelines, respectful collaboration, and supportive structures that enable midwives to practice with confidence and trust.

Indexed as

Fetal growth restrictionScreening, Decision making, Interprofessional relationships, Midwifery

Identifiers

PMID41234673
PMCPMC12607044

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.