ArticleBMJ open2026
Midwives/nurse midwives' autonomy experience in caring for labouring women in health facilities: a systematic review protocol with meta-synthesis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMidwives/nurse midwives are the healthcare professionals most often present on the birth scene. However, they have been the professionals who are most justified to defend their legally established position by arguing their competence and autonomy. Thus, it is important to show their reality through experiences, particularly when autonomy does notalign with regulations. This meta-synthesis aims to bring together scientific evidence regarding midwife/nurse midwife's autonomy experience in caring for labouring women in health facilities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The meta-aggregation will be used to conduct a systematic review of qualitative studies. In January 2025, a search was carried out in scientific databases: EBSCOhost (CINAHL Ultimate, MEDLINE Ultimate and Academic Search Complete), LILACS, PubMed, Wiley Online Library, Scopus and Web of Science. The articles will be independently reviewed by two authors who will assess data quality, extraction and synthesis. Studies will be assessed for rigour using critical appraisal tools provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Data extraction and synthesis will be carried out using software, and results will be presented in tables. The results of the qualitative research will, where possible, be grouped according to the meta-aggregation approach proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval to analyse secondary data is not required. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international and national conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024572542.
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.