Cargando…

Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?

Systems of care that provide midwifery care and services through a continuity of care model have positive health outcomes for women and newborns. We conducted a scoping review to understand the global implementation of these models, asking the questions: where, how, by whom and for whom are midwifer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bradford, Billie F., Wilson, Alyce N., Portela, Anayda, McConville, Fran, Fernandez Turienzo, Cristina, Homer, Caroline S. E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10021789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36962588
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000935
_version_ 1784908580223188992
author Bradford, Billie F.
Wilson, Alyce N.
Portela, Anayda
McConville, Fran
Fernandez Turienzo, Cristina
Homer, Caroline S. E.
author_facet Bradford, Billie F.
Wilson, Alyce N.
Portela, Anayda
McConville, Fran
Fernandez Turienzo, Cristina
Homer, Caroline S. E.
author_sort Bradford, Billie F.
collection PubMed
description Systems of care that provide midwifery care and services through a continuity of care model have positive health outcomes for women and newborns. We conducted a scoping review to understand the global implementation of these models, asking the questions: where, how, by whom and for whom are midwifery continuity of care models implemented? Using a scoping review framework, we searched electronic and grey literature databases for reports in any language between January 2012 and January 2022, which described current and recent trials, implementation or scaling-up of midwifery continuity of care studies or initiatives in high-, middle- and low-income countries. After screening, 175 reports were included, the majority (157, 90%) from high-income countries (HICs) and fewer (18, 10%) from low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). There were 163 unique studies including eight (4.9%) randomised or quasi-randomised trials, 58 (38.5%) qualitative, 53 (32.7%) quantitative (cohort, cross sectional, descriptive, observational), 31 (19.0%) survey studies, and three (1.9%) health economics analyses. There were 10 practice-based accounts that did not include research. Midwives led almost all continuity of care models. In HICs, the most dominant model was where small groups of midwives provided care for designated women, across the antenatal, childbirth and postnatal care continuum. This was mostly known as caseload midwifery or midwifery group practice. There was more diversity of models in low- to middle-income countries. Of the 175 initiatives described, 31 (18%) were implemented for women, newborns and families from priority or vulnerable communities. With the exception of New Zealand, no countries have managed to scale-up continuity of midwifery care at a national level. Further implementation studies are needed to support countries planning to transition to midwifery continuity of care models in all countries to determine optimal model types and strategies to achieve sustainable scale-up at a national level.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10021789
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100217892023-03-17 Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom? Bradford, Billie F. Wilson, Alyce N. Portela, Anayda McConville, Fran Fernandez Turienzo, Cristina Homer, Caroline S. E. PLOS Glob Public Health Research Article Systems of care that provide midwifery care and services through a continuity of care model have positive health outcomes for women and newborns. We conducted a scoping review to understand the global implementation of these models, asking the questions: where, how, by whom and for whom are midwifery continuity of care models implemented? Using a scoping review framework, we searched electronic and grey literature databases for reports in any language between January 2012 and January 2022, which described current and recent trials, implementation or scaling-up of midwifery continuity of care studies or initiatives in high-, middle- and low-income countries. After screening, 175 reports were included, the majority (157, 90%) from high-income countries (HICs) and fewer (18, 10%) from low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). There were 163 unique studies including eight (4.9%) randomised or quasi-randomised trials, 58 (38.5%) qualitative, 53 (32.7%) quantitative (cohort, cross sectional, descriptive, observational), 31 (19.0%) survey studies, and three (1.9%) health economics analyses. There were 10 practice-based accounts that did not include research. Midwives led almost all continuity of care models. In HICs, the most dominant model was where small groups of midwives provided care for designated women, across the antenatal, childbirth and postnatal care continuum. This was mostly known as caseload midwifery or midwifery group practice. There was more diversity of models in low- to middle-income countries. Of the 175 initiatives described, 31 (18%) were implemented for women, newborns and families from priority or vulnerable communities. With the exception of New Zealand, no countries have managed to scale-up continuity of midwifery care at a national level. Further implementation studies are needed to support countries planning to transition to midwifery continuity of care models in all countries to determine optimal model types and strategies to achieve sustainable scale-up at a national level. Public Library of Science 2022-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10021789/ /pubmed/36962588 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000935 Text en © 2022 Bradford et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bradford, Billie F.
Wilson, Alyce N.
Portela, Anayda
McConville, Fran
Fernandez Turienzo, Cristina
Homer, Caroline S. E.
Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?
title Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?
title_full Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?
title_fullStr Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?
title_full_unstemmed Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?
title_short Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?
title_sort midwifery continuity of care: a scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10021789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36962588
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000935
work_keys_str_mv AT bradfordbillief midwiferycontinuityofcareascopingreviewofwherehowbywhomandforwhom
AT wilsonalycen midwiferycontinuityofcareascopingreviewofwherehowbywhomandforwhom
AT portelaanayda midwiferycontinuityofcareascopingreviewofwherehowbywhomandforwhom
AT mcconvillefran midwiferycontinuityofcareascopingreviewofwherehowbywhomandforwhom
AT fernandezturienzocristina midwiferycontinuityofcareascopingreviewofwherehowbywhomandforwhom
AT homercarolinese midwiferycontinuityofcareascopingreviewofwherehowbywhomandforwhom