ArticleBMJ open2026
Top 10 priorities for midwifery practice and maternity care research in the UK: findings from the James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo establish a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership to identify research priorities for midwifery practice and maternity care.
designUsing standard JLA methodology, participants were invited to complete an online survey asking for evidence gaps and information about areas of importance to them. Out of scope data were removed and the data analysed to develop uncertainties or priority areas. Following an evidence check to establish if any of the uncertainties had already been answered, a second online survey was developed, in which the priority areas were ranked in importance by respondents. An in-person workshop was held to decide the final top 10 based on the ranked priorities from the second survey.
settingThe UK maternity services.
participantsMidwives, midwifery students, maternity support workers, women, birthing people and their families and supporters.
results977 respondents provided 3272 lines of data. Analysis resulted in the creation of 68 priority topics. Following a review of the evidence, one uncertainty was found to have already been answered. The remaining 67 uncertainties were then ranked by 548 respondents using an online survey. The final top 10 priorities were agreed by consensus at an in-person workshop and include a range of topics across clinical care, as well as those affecting staff well-being and midwifery education.
conclusionsResearchers who undertake midwifery and maternity research should consider these priorities when deciding on the focus of studies and applying for funding. Funders should also consider these priority areas when deciding which studies to support.
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.