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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |