ArticleInternational journal of women's health2026
Midwifery Research Priorities in Saudi Arabia: A Priority-Setting Partnership Approach.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Research priority-setting supports efficient use of resources and strengthens the involvement of midwifery for high-quality, equitable maternity care. In Saudi Arabia, a recent transformation has expanded the midwifery role. However, no national stakeholder-driven midwifery research agenda has been developed. Therefore, the aim of the study is to identify and set midwifery research priorities for health care services in Saudi Arabia using a modified priority-setting partnership approach. Methods: A mixed-methods design was utilized guided by the James Lind Alliance Priority-Setting Partnership framework. A steering group comprising clinicians and mothers codesigned the process. Purposive sampling was used to recruit midwives, nurses, obstetricians, and mothers from 10 out of the 13 Saudi regions. Individual interviews generated research uncertainties, which were analyzed using conventional inductive content analysis. A long list of topics were checked against existing evidence, then refined through interim ranking by the steering group. In a consensus workshop, clinicians and mothers used a structured nominal group technique and scoring system to reach consensus on the top-10 priorities. Results: A total of 35 (27 clinicians and eight mothers) participated in the interviews. The analysis generated 230 research uncertainties, summarized into 33 topics, which were then shortened to 19. Through interim ranking and consensus, 10 research priorities were agreed on: (1) midwifery workforce and professional recognition, (2) maternal health and care practices, (3) neonatal and newborn care, (4) midwifery education and competency development, (5) cultural and community context, (6) special populations and high-risk groups, (7) integration of technology and innovation, (8) stakeholder and patient engagement in research, (9) health system and policy, and (10) emerging research directions. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first national stakeholder-driven midwifery research priority agenda in Saudi Arabia. The identified priorities offer a comprehensive and clear road map for researchers, investors, educators, and policymakers to align future midwifery research with areas of greatest perceived need and impact.
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.