Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9800397›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1998

General practitioners' attitudes to the development of midwifery group practices.

N Fenwick, M Morgan, C McKenzie, C Wolfe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. General practitioners' views of working with team midwifery.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

N FenwickDepartment of Public Health Medicine, UMDS, London.
M Morgan
C McKenzie
C Wolfe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe report Changing childbirth (1993) has led to the development of midwifery-led schemes that aim to increase the continuity of maternity care.

aimTo determine the impact of midwifery group practices on the work of general practitioners (GPs) and their perceptions of midwifery group practice care.

methodPostal questionnaires were sent to 58 GPs referring women to the care of midwifery group practices (group-practice GPs), and a shorter questionnaire was sent to the remaining 67 GPs (non-group-practice GPs) within the same postcode area as a comparison group. In-depth interviews were conducted with 12 GPs.

resultsQuestionnaires were returned by 71% of group-practice GPs and 81% of non-group practice GPs. One third of the group practice GPs felt that they were seeing group practice women too few times, and 50% thought midwives discouraged women from visiting their GP for antenatal checks. Over 80% of group practice GPs believed that midwives had the skills to detect deviation from the normal, and 66% would confidently refer women to their care. However, only 14% of group practice GPs believed that their own role was clear, while 64% agreed that communication with group practice midwives was poor, and concerns were expressed about the level of consultation before establishing schemes. Of the non-group practice GPs, 87% said they would consider referring women to the care of a midwifery group practice in the future.

conclusionsGeneral practitioners were generally positive about the quality of care provided by midwifery group practices but identified issues that require addressing in developing this model of care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGroup PracticeFemaleHumansMidwiferyPhysicians, FamilyPhysician's RoleSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID9800397
PMCPMC1313132

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.