Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42674785›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2026

Understanding the contexts and mechanisms that drive high-quality maternity care outcomes within organisations: generating 11 initial programme theories as phase 1 of a realist review.

Claire Feeley, Ellen Thaels, Andrew Booth, Michelle Quashie, Farrah Pradhan, Kate Greenstock, Alicia Burnett, Kate Walker, Yan-Shing Chang, Gordon Prescott and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

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

12 authors.

Claire FeeleyFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK claire.feeley@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8013-0352
Ellen ThaelsFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Andrew BoothSCHARR, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4808-3880
Michelle QuashieKing's College London, London, UK.
Farrah PradhanRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK.
Kate GreenstockCity University, London, UK.
Alicia BurnettKing's College London, London, UK.
Kate WalkerUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Yan-Shing ChangFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Gordon PrescottLancashire Clinical Trials Unit, University of Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Katrina RigbyLancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.
Soo DowneUniversity of Lancashire, Preston, UK.

Funding

the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) NIHR-206404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThere has been considerable attention placed on 'failures' of maternity care in high-income countries, with little focus on the drivers of 'high-quality' care delivered at the organisational level. We conducted a realist review with this central focus and report on the first phase, initial programme theories (IPTs) generated from the literature, where a future phase will 'test' the IPTs.

designA realist review methodology was employed, an interpretative, theory-driven approach designed to explore 'what works, for whom, in what circumstances' using context, mechanism and outcome (CMO) propositions. DATA SOURCES: The search strategy used a purposive database (MEDLINE) and hand searches, including peer-reviewed journals, grey literature and policy reports, to identify literature rich and relevant to the research question. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: As per realist review approaches, we included any English-language literature from peer-reviewed journals, grey literature, policy reports, service guidance and public or professional commentary, from high-income countries, that provided explanatory insights to the operationalisation of 'high-quality' maternity care at the organisational level. Using an a priori definition, high-quality maternity care was defined based on four outcome criteria: higher service user and staff well-being, lower prevalence of complications/adverse outcomes and optimal use of resources. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction configured evidence using the 'If, Then, Leading to' CMO heuristic. The IPTs were iteratively developed from the synthesised data and refined through consultation with a diverse 26-member core stakeholder group.

resultsThe iterative search process included 17 index papers, which were a mix of systematic reviews, primary research studies, commissioned reports, evaluations and commentaries. These papers generated 292 initial CMO hypotheses, which were refined into 11 IPTs focusing on organisational-level mechanisms. The IPTs reflect a 'both-and' philosophy, balancing clinical excellence (safety) and values-based relational care (personalisation and staff environment). Key themes include visible and supportive leadership, responsiveness to workload assessments, ensuring operational fitness (system and workplace environment support) and broadening the definition of safety beyond physical safety to include psychological, emotional and cultural safety. The IPT related to 'A culture of equitable care' was identified as critical in underpinning all maternity service provision.

conclusionThe 11 IPTs offer crucial insights into the context and mechanisms that may produce desired outcomes in high-quality maternity care. Learning from high-quality services (safety II) provides a novel approach compared with focusing only on failings. These globally relevant IPTs can be applied to high-income contexts as a foundation for designing future improvement programmes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251104996.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesQuality of Health CareDeveloped CountriesFemaleHumansPregnancyMaternal medicineQuality in health careSafetySystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID42674785
PMCPMC13536141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.