Search

Background: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016., Objectives: To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence., Main Results: We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models., Authors' Conclusions: Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: The process of developing a survey instrument to evaluate women's experiences of their maternity care is complex given that maternity care encapsulates various contexts, services, professions and professionals across the antenatal, intranatal and postnatal periods., Aim: To identify and prioritise items for inclusion in the National Maternity Experience Survey, a survey instrument to evaluate women's experiences of their maternity care in the Republic of Ireland., Methods: This study used an adapted two-phase exploratory sequential mixed methods design. Phase one identified items for possible inclusion and developed an exhaustive item pool through a systematic review, focus groups and one to one interviews, and a gap analysis. Phase two prioritised the items for inclusion in the final item bank through a Delphi study and consensus review., Findings: Following iterative consultation with key stakeholder groups, a bank of 95 items have been prioritised and grouped within eight distinct care sections; care during your pregnancy, care during your labour and birth, care in hospital after the birth of your baby, specialised care for your baby, feeding your baby, care at home after the birth of your baby, overall care and you and your household., Conclusion: Robust and rigorous methods have been used to develop a bank of 95 suitable items for inclusion in the National Maternity Experience Survey., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite many countries employing the use of national and large scale regional surveys to explore women's experiences of their maternity care, with the results informing national maternity policy and practice, the concept itself is ambiguous and ill-defined having not been subject of a structured concept development endeavour., Aim: The aim of this review is to report on an in-depth analysis conducted on the concept of 'women's experiences of their maternity care'., Methods: Using the principle-based method of concept analysis by Penrod and Hupcey (2005), the concept of 'women's experiences of their maternity care' was analysed under the epistemological, pragmatic, linguistic and logical principles. The final dataset included 87 items of literature published between 1990 and 2017 retrieved from a systematic search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and PSYCinfo databases., Findings: The epistemological principle identified that a theoretical definition of the concept is elusive with a variety of implicit meanings. The pragmatic principle supports the utility of the concept in scientific literature, however the lack of a theoretical definition has led to inconsistent use of the concept, as highlighted by the linguistic principle. Furthermore, the logical principle highlighted that as the concept lacks definition blurring is identifiable when theoretically positioned with related concepts., Conclusion: The outcome of this concept analysis is a theoretical definition of a previously undefined concept. This definition highlights the subjective nature of the concept, its dependency upon a woman's individual needs, expectations and circumstances and the influence of the organisation and delivery of maternity care., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of survey instruments to measure women's experiences of their maternity care is regarded internationally as an indicator of the quality of care received. To ensure the credibility of the data arising from these instruments, the methodological quality of development must be high. This paper reports the protocol for a systematic review of self-report instruments used to measure women's experiences of their maternity care., Methods: Citation databases CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched from 2002 to 2018 using keywords including women, experience, maternity care, questionnaires, surveys, and self-report. Citations will be screened by two reviewers, in two rounds, for inclusion as per predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction forms will be populated with data, extracted from each study, to evaluate the methodological quality of each survey instrument and the criteria for good measurement properties using quality criteria. Data will also be extracted to categorise the items included in each survey instrument. A combination of a structured narrative synthesis and quantitate summaries in tabular format will allow for recommendations to be made on the use, adaptation and development of future survey instruments., Discussion: The value of survey instruments that evaluate women's experiences of their maternity care, as a marker of quality care, has been recognised internationally with many countries employing the use of such instruments to inform policy and practice. The development of these instruments must be methodologically sound and the instrument itself fit for the purpose and context in which it is used. This protocol describes the methods that will be used to complete a systematic review that will serve as a guide for choosing the most appropriate existing instruments to use or adapt so that they are fit for purpose, in addition to informing the development of new instruments., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018105325.

Background: Measuring care processes is an important component of any effort to improve care quality, however knowing the appropriate metrics to measure is a challenge both in Ireland and other countries. Quality of midwifery care depends on the expert knowledge of the midwife and her/his contribution to women and their babies' safety in the healthcare environment. Therefore midwives need to be able to clearly articulate and measure what it is that they do, the dimensions of their professional practice frequently referred to as midwifery care processes. The objective of this paper is to report on the development and prioritisation of a national suite of Quality Care Metrics (QCM), and their associated indicators, for midwifery care processes in Ireland., Methods: The study involved four discrete, yet complimentary, phases; i) a systematic literature review to identify midwifery care process metrics and their associated measurement indicators; ii) a two-round, online Delphi survey of midwives to develop consensus on the set of midwifery care process metrics to be measured; iii) a two-round online Delphi survey of midwives to develop consensus on the indicators that will be used to measure prioritised metrics; and iv) a face-to-face consensus meeting with midwives to review the findings and achieve consensus on the final suite of metrics and indicators., Results: Following the consensus meeting, 18 metrics and 93 indicators were prioritised for inclusion in the suite of QCM Midwifery Metrics. These metrics span the pregnancy, birth and postpartum periods., Conclusion: The development of this suite of process metrics and indicators for midwifery care provides an opportunity for measuring the safety and quality of midwifery care in Ireland and for adapting internationally. This initial work should be followed by a rigorous evaluation of the impact of the new suite of metrics on midwifery care processes.

Background: The translation of research into clinical practice is a key component of evidence-informed decision making. We implemented a multi-component dissemination and implementation strategy for healthcare professionals (HCPs) called Evidence Rounds. We report the findings of focus groups and interviews with HCPs to explore their perceptions of Evidence Rounds and help inform the implementation of future similar initiatives. This is the second paper in a two-part series., Methods: We employed total population, purposive sampling by targeting all of the health care professionals who attended or presented at group sessions exploring the evidence on clinical questions or topics chosen and presented by the HCPs. We conducted and audio-recorded in-person focus groups and one-to-one interviews, which were then transcribed verbatim. Two authors independently coded transcripts. NVivo software was used to collate the primary data and codes. We analysed data guided by the five steps involved in framework analysis; 1) familiarization 2) identifying a thematic framework 3) indexing 4) charting 5) mapping and interpretation., Results: Thirteen HCPs participated, of which 6 were medical doctors an d 7 were nursing or midwifery staff. We identified the following key domains; organisational readiness for change, barriers and facilitators to attendance, barriers and facilitators to presenting, communication and dissemination of information, and sustainability. During focus groups and interviews HCPs reported that Evidence Rounds had a positive impact on their continuing education and clinical practice. They also provided insights into how future initiatives could be optimised to support and enable them to narrow the gap between research evidence and practice., Conclusions: Individual, departmental and organisational level contextual factors can play a major role in implementation within complex health services. HCPs highlighted how in combination with clinical guideline development, implementation of evidence could be increased. Further research after a longer period of implementation could investigate how initiatives might be optimised to promote the uptake of evidence, improve implementation and expedite behaviour change.

Background: Evidence-informed practice is fundamental to the delivery of high quality health care. Delays and gaps in the translation of research into practice can impact negatively on patient care. Previous studies have reported that problems facing health care professionals such as information overload, underdeveloped critical appraisal skills, lack of time and other individual, organisational and system-level contextual factors are barriers to the uptake of evidence. Health services research in this area has been restricted largely to the evaluation of program outcomes. This paper aims to describe the implementation process of an educational initiative for health care professionals working in midwifery, neonatology or obstetrics aimed at disseminating evidence and enhancing evidence-informed clinical care., Methods: We designed and implemented an educational initiative called Evidence Rounds for health care professionals working in the women and children's division of an urban hospital in Ireland. It consisted of three core components: (1) group educational sessions examining evidence on topics chosen by staff (2) a dedicated website and (3) facilitation, enablement and support from a knowledge translation professional. We evaluated user engagement in the educational program by monitoring attendance figures and website analytics. We followed up with staff at 3, 16 and 21-month intervals after the last educational session to find out whether evidence had been implemented. We use Lavis's organising framework for knowledge transfer and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to describe the educational program and document the implementation process., Results: Six educational sessions presented by 18 health care professionals took place over a nine month period with 148 attendances of which 85 were unique (individuals who attended at least one session). During the period spanning from one month before, during and one month after the running of the group sessions, 188 unique visitors, 331 visits and 862 page views were recorded on our website., Conclusions: Audit and feedback processes can provide quantitative data to track practice outcomes. Achieving sustainable educational programs can be challenging without dedicated resources such as staffing and funding.

Background: Over the past four decades, there has been a growing focus on the resolution of conceptual problems through the process of concept development. As the focus on this area has grown, so too has the number of debates in the literature on methodological aspects of concept development., Aim: To provide an overview of the essential methodological considerations of concept development., Design: Discussion paper. An overview is presented of the methodological considerations of commonly used concept development strategies and methods within nursing and midwifery., Data Sources: Literature dating from the inception of concept development in nursing and midwifery., Implications for Nursing and Midwifery: The robust development of concepts is a vital component in advancing the knowledge base of nursing and midwifery theory and practice. However, the complexity of the concept development literature may serve to exacerbate the challenges of developing a given concept, in particular for the novice researcher., Conclusion: The methodological considerations discussed provides guidance in determining the most appropriate strategy and method of concept development., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Complex interventions encompassing several interconnecting and interacting components can be challenging to evaluate. Examining the underlying trial processes while an intervention is being tested can assist in explaining why an intervention was effective (or not). This paper describes a process evaluation of a pan-European cluster randomised controlled trial, OptiBIRTH (undertaken in Ireland, Italy and Germany), that successfully used both quantitative and qualitative methods to enhance understanding of the underlying trial mechanisms and their effect on the trial outcome., Methods: We carried out a mixed methods process evaluation. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from observation of the implementation of the intervention in practice to determine whether it was delivered according to the original protocol. Data were examined to assess the delivery of the various components of the intervention and the receipt of the intervention by key stakeholders (pregnant women, midwives, obstetricians). Using ethnography, an exploration of perceived experiences from a range of recipients was conducted to understand the perspective of both those delivering and those receiving the intervention., Results: Engagement by stakeholders with the different components of the intervention varied from minimal intensity of women's engagement with antenatal classes, to moderate intensity of engagement with online resources, to high intensity of clinicians' exposure to the education sessions provided. The ethnography determined that, although the overall culture in the intervention site did not change, smaller, more individual cultural changes were observed. The fidelity of the delivery of the intervention scored average quality marks of 80% and above on repeat assessments., Conclusion: Nesting a process evaluation within the trial enabled the observation of the mode of action of the intervention in its practice context and ensured that the intervention was delivered with a good level of consistency. Implementation problems were identified as they arose and were addressed accordingly. When dealing with a complex intervention, collecting and analysing both quantitative and qualitative data, as we did, can greatly enhance the process evaluation., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials Register, ISRCTN10612254 . Registered on 3 April 2013.

Background: Recent policy and service provision recommends a woman-centred approach to maternity care. Midwife-led models of care are seen as one important strategy for enhancing women's choice; a core element of woman-centred care. In the Republic of Ireland, an obstetric consultant-led, midwife-managed service model currently predominates and there is limited exploration of the concept of women centred care from the perspectives of those directly involved; that is, women, midwives, general practitioners and obstetricians. This study considers women's and clinicians' views, experiences and perspectives of woman-centred maternity care in Ireland., Methods: A descriptive qualitative design. Participants (n = 31) were purposively sampled from two geographically distinct maternity units. Interviews were face-to-face or over the telephone, one-to-one or focus groups. A thematic analysis of the interview data was performed., Results: Five major themes representing women's and clinicians' views, experiences and perspectives of women-centred care emerged from the data. These were Protecting Normality, Education and Decision Making, Continuity, Empowerment for Women-Centred Care and Building Capacity for Women-Centred Care. Within these major themes, sub-themes emerged that reflect key elements of women-centred care. These were respect, partnership in decision making, information sharing, educational impact, continuity of service, staff continuity and availability, genuine choice, promoting women's autonomy, individualized care, staff competency and practice organization., Conclusion: Women centred-care, as perceived by participants in this study, is not routinely provided in Ireland and women subscribe to the dominant culture that views safety as paramount. Women-centred care can best be facilitated through continuity of carer and in particular through midwife led models of care; however, there is potential to provide women-centred care within existing labour wards in terms of consistency of care, education of women, common approaches to care across professions and women's choice. To achieve this, however, future research is required to better understand the role of midwife-led care within existing labour ward settings. While a positive view of women-centred care was found; there is still a difference in approach and imbalance of power between the professions. More research is required to consider how these differences impact care provision and how they might be overcome.

Background: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care., Objectives: To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models., Authors' Conclusions: This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

Background: Abstracts and plain language summaries (PLS) are often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact between readers and systematic reviews. It is important to identify how these summaries are used and to know the impact of different elements, including the authors' conclusions. The trial aims to assess whether (a) the abstract or the PLS of a Cochrane Review is a better aid for midwifery students in assessing the evidence, (b) inclusion of authors' conclusions helps them and (c) there is an interaction between the type of summary and the presence or absence of the conclusions., Methods: Eight hundred thirteen midwifery students from nine universities in the UK and Ireland were recruited to this 2 × 2 factorial trial (abstract versus PLS, conclusions versus no conclusions). They were randomly allocated to one of four groups and asked to recall knowledge after reading one of four summary formats of two Cochrane Reviews, one with clear findings and one with uncertain findings. The primary outcome was the proportion of students who identified the appropriate statement to describe the main findings of the two reviews as assessed by an expert panel., Results: There was no statistically significant difference in correct response between the abstract and PLS groups in the clear finding example (abstract, 59.6 %; PLS, 64.2 %; risk difference 4.6 %; CI -0.2 to 11.3) or the uncertain finding example (42.7 %, 39.3 %, -3.4 %, -10.1 to 3.4). There was no significant difference between the conclusion and no conclusion groups in the example with clear findings (conclusions, 63.3 %; no conclusions, 60.5 %; 2.8 %; -3.9 to 9.5), but there was a significant difference in the example with uncertain findings (44.7 %; 37.3 %; 7.3 %; 0.6 to 14.1, p = 0.03). PLS without conclusions in the uncertain finding review had the lowest proportion of correct responses (32.5 %). Prior knowledge and belief predicted student response to the clear finding review, while years of midwifery education predicted response to the uncertain finding review., Conclusions: Abstracts with and without conclusions generated similar student responses. PLS with conclusions gave similar results to abstracts with and without conclusions. Removing the conclusions from a PLS with uncertain findings led to more problems with interpretation.

Objective: to compare the cost of maternity care between two midwife-led units, and their linked consultant-led units, following a large randomised trial in Ireland., Design: ethical approval was received for this unblinded, pragmatic randomised trial (MidU) funded by the Health Service Executive (Dublin North-East, Ireland), conducted 2004-2009. A comparison of costs analysis was conducted on the outcomes from the trial., Setting: two maternity units in Ireland, with 'alongside' midwife-led units., Participants: all women without risk factors for labour and birth who booked at the two maternity units before 24 weeks׳ gestation were assessed for inclusion. Consenting women (n=1653) were centrally randomised on a 2:1 ratio (1101:552) to midwife-led or consultant-led care., Interventions: women randomised to consultant-led care received standard care. Women randomised to the midwife-led arm received midwife-led care provided by a small group of midwives in two units, situated ׳alongside׳ the consultant-led units, throughout pregnancy, birth and postnatal., Measurements: mean difference in clinician salaries, cost of care based on managers׳ data, known costs of postnatal bed days and costs of key interventions were measured., Findings: the average cost of caring for a woman allocated to the midwife-led units was €2598, compared to €2780 in the consultant-led units (average difference €182 per woman, analysed by 'intention to treat')., Key Conclusions and Implications for Practice: care in these two midwife-led units costs less than care provided by the consultant-led units. Given the clinical findings, which showed that care provided in the midwife-led units is as safe as that in the consultant-led units and results in less intervention, more midwife-led units should be incorporated into maternity care in Ireland so that scarce resources can be used more effectively., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care., Objectives: To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy., Main Results: We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e., regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = 8; high quality) and less overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = 4), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss/neonatal death before 24 weeks (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = 7), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = 3) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = 7). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss or neonatal death more than or equal to 24 weeks, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models., Authors' Conclusions: This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and overall fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of women-centred interventions during pregnancy and birth to increase rates of vaginal birth after caesarean., Design: we searched bibliographic databases for randomised trials or cluster randomised trials on women-centred interventions during pregnancy and birth designed to increase VBAC rates in women with at least one previous caesarean section. Comparator groups included standard or usual care or an alternative treatment aimed at increasing VBAC rates. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently by two authors using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. Outcome data were extracted independently from each included study by two review authors., Findings: in total, 821 citations were identified and screened by title and abstract; 806 were excluded and full text of 15 assessed. Of these, 12 were excluded leaving three papers included in the review. Two studies evaluated the effectiveness of decision aids for mode of birth and one evaluated the effectiveness of an antenatal education programme. The findings demonstrate that neither the use of decision aids nor information/education of women have a significant effect on VBAC rates. Nevertheless, decision-aids significantly decrease women's decisional conflict about mode of birth, and information programmes significantly increase their knowledge about the risks and benefits of possible modes of birth., Key Conclusions: few studies evaluated women-centred interventions designed to improve VBAC rates, and all interventions were applied in pregnancy only, none during the birth. There is an urgent need to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of all types of women-centred interventions during pregnancy and birth, designed to improve VBAC rates., Implications for Practice: decision-aids and information programmes during pregnancy should be provided for women as, even though they do not affect the rate of VBAC, they decrease women's decisional conflict and increase their knowledge about possible modes of birth., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care., Objectives: To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 January 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth., Data Collection and Analysis: All review authors evaluated methodological quality. Two review authors checked data extraction., Main Results: We included 13 trials involving 16,242 women. Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.90), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92), and instrumental birth (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96), and were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.08), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.83, 95% CI 4.15 to 14.80), and a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (hours) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births (average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02).Women who were randomised to receive midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience preterm birth (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94) and fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99), although there were no differences in fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.51) or in overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in the midwifery-led continuity care model. Similarly there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models., Authors' Conclusions: Most women should be offered midwife-led continuity models of care and women should be encouraged to ask for this option although caution should be exercised in applying this advice to women with substantial medical or obstetric complications.

Objectives: to analyse the existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of midwife-led care compared with consultant-led care in settings potentially generalisable to the United Kingdom, and to estimate the potential cost savings accruing from an expansion of midwife-led care in the United Kingdom., Design: a systematic review of the literature was conducted across twelve electronic databases for papers relating to the costs of midwife-led models of care. Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies were considered for inclusion. The methods specified by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to assess the cost-effectiveness of midwife-led care were broadly used. Multiple simple one-way sensitivity analyses were undertaken to examine the robustness of findings to varying scenarios., Findings: based on scant existing evidence, the mean cost saving for each eligible maternity was estimated at approximately ST£12.38 (sterling). If midwife-led services were expanded to 50% of all eligible women in the UK, as assumed in the main set of results, this would result in an aggregate cost saving of ST£1.16 million per year. In the sensitivity analyses, cost changes per maternity vary from a saving of ST£253.38 to a cost increase of ST£108.12 depending on the assumptions used, corresponding to aggregate savings of ST£23.75 million and a cost increase of ST£10.13 million., Key Conclusions: expanding midwife-led maternity services for eligible women may offer a means of reducing costs compared to the current leading model of care. However, firm conclusions are elusive due to the paucity of evidence., Implications for Practice: there is a clear need for further economic evaluations of models of maternity care in the United Kingdom context to guide the better use of scarce resources., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current recommendations do not support the use of continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for low risk women during labour, yet EFM remains widespread in clinical practice. Consideration of the views, perspectives and experiences of individuals directly concerned with EFM application may be beneficial for identifying barriers to and facilitators for implementing evidence-based maternity care. The aim of this paper is to offer insight and understanding, through systematic review and thematic analysis, of research into professionals' views on fetal heart rate monitoring during labour., Methods: Any study whose aim was to explore professional views of fetal monitoring during labour was considered eligible for inclusion. The electronic databases of MEDLINE (1966-2010), CINAHL (1980-2010), EMBASE (1974-2010) and Maternity and Infant Care: MIDIRS (1971-2010) were searched in January 2010 and an updated search was performed in March 2012. Quality appraisal of each included study was performed. Data extraction tables were developed to collect data. Data synthesis was by thematic analysis., Results: Eleven studies, including 1,194 participants, were identified and included in this review. Four themes emerged from the data: 1) reassurance, 2) technology, 3) communication/education and 4) midwife by proxy., Conclusion: This systematic review and thematic analysis offers insight into some of the views of professionals on fetal monitoring during labour. It provides evidence for the continuing use of EFM when caring for low-risk women, contrary to current research evidence. Further research to ascertain how some of these views might be addressed to ensure the provision of evidence-based care for women and their babies is recommended.

The purpose of this metasynthesis is to describe and interpret qualitative research relating to midwife-led care to see if it sheds light on why low-risk women experience fewer birth interventions within this model of care. Eleven articles were included in the review. Three themes emerged: (a) relationally mediated benefits for women that resulted in increased agency and empathic care; (b) the problematic interface of midwife-led units with host maternity units, stemming from a clash of models and culture; and (c) greater agency for midwives within midwife-led models of care though bounded by the relationship with the host maternity unit. This metasynthesis suggests that lower rates of interventions could be linked to the greater agency experienced by women and midwives within midwife-led models, and that these effects are mediated, in part, by the smallness of scale in these settings.

Background: No midwifery-led units existed in Ireland before 2004. The aim of this study was to compare midwife-led (MLU) versus consultant-led (CLU) care for healthy, pregnant women without risk factors for labour and delivery., Methods: An unblinded, pragmatic randomised trial was designed, funded by the Health Service Executive (Dublin North-East). Following ethical approval, all women booking prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy at two maternity hospitals with 1,300-3,200 births annually in Ireland were assessed for trial eligibility.1,653 consenting women were centrally randomised on a 2:1 ratio to MLU or CLU care, (1101:552). 'Intention-to-treat' analysis was used to compare 9 key neonatal and maternal outcomes., Results: No statistically significant difference was found between MLU and CLU in the seven key outcomes: caesarean birth (163 [14.8%] vs 84 [15.2%]; relative risk (RR) 0.97 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.24]), induction (248 [22.5%] vs 138 [25.0%]; RR 0.90 [0.75 to 1.08]), episiotomy (126 [11.4%] vs 68 [12.3%]; RR 0.93 [0.70 to 1.23]), instrumental birth (139 [12.6%] vs 79 [14.3%]; RR 0.88 [0.68 to 1.14]), Apgar scores < 8 (10 [0.9%] vs 9 [1.6%]; RR 0.56 [0.23 to 1.36]), postpartum haemorrhage (144 [13.1%] vs 75 [13.6%]; RR 0.96 [0.74 to 1.25]); breastfeeding initiation (616 [55.9%] vs 317 [57.4%]; RR 0.97 [0.89 to 1.06]). MLU women were significantly less likely to have continuous electronic fetal monitoring (397 [36.1%] vs 313 [56.7%]; RR 0.64 [0.57 to 0.71]), or augmentation of labour (436 [39.6%] vs 314 [56.9%]; RR 0.50 [0.40 to 0.61])., Conclusions: Midwife-led care, as practised in this study, is as safe as consultant-led care and is associated with less intervention during labour and delivery.

The aim of this bi-monthly column is to highlight Cochrane Systematic Reviews of relevance to pregnancy and childbirth and to stimulate discussion on their implications for practice. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international organisation that prepares and maintains high quality systematic reviews to help people make well-informed decisions about healthcare and health policy. A systematic review searches, appraises and synthesises existing research to answer a specific research question. Residents in countries with a national license to The Cochrane Library, including the UK and Ireland, can access the Cochrane Library online free of charge through www.thecochranelibrary.com.

This article draws on findings from a recent Cochrane systematic review of midwife-led care and discusses its contribution to the safety and quality of women's care in the domains of safety, effectiveness, woman-centeredness, and efficiency. According to the Cochrane review, women who received models of midwife-led care were nearly eight times more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife, were 21% less likely to experience fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation, 19% less likely to have regional analgesia, 14% less likely to have instrumental birth, 18% less likely to have an episiotomy, and significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth, initiate breastfeeding, and feel in control. In addition to normalizing and humanizing birth, the contribution of midwife-led care to the quality and safety of health care is substantial. The implications are that policymakers who wish to improve the quality and safety of maternal and infant care, particularly around normalizing and humanizing birth, should consider midwife-led models of care and how financing of midwife-led services can support this. Suggestions for future research include exploring why fetal loss is reduced under 24 weeks' gestation in midwife-led models of care, and ensuring that the effectiveness of midwife-led models of care on mothers' and infants' health and well-being are assessed in the longer postpartum period., (Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Nurse-Midwives. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led and other models of care., Objectives: To compare midwife-led models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2008), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's Trials Register (January 2008), Current Contents (1994 to January 2008), CINAHL (1982 to August 2006), Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, ISI Proceedings, (1990 to 2008), and the WHO Reproductive Health Library, No. 9., Selection Criteria: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led or other models of care during pregnancy, and where care is provided during the ante- and intrapartum period in the midwife-led model., Data Collection and Analysis: All authors evaluated methodological quality. Two authors independently checked the data extraction., Main Results: We included 11 trials (12,276 women). Women who had midwife-led models of care were less likely to experience antenatal hospitalisation, risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.99), the use of regional analgesia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91), episiotomy (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.88), and instrumental delivery (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96) and were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.29), spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06), to feel in control during labour and childbirth (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.30), attendance at birth by a known midwife (RR 7.84, 95% CI 4.15 to 14.81) and initiate breastfeeding (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.76). In addition, women who were randomised to receive midwife-led care were less likely to experience fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97), and their babies were more likely to have a shorter length of hospital stay (mean difference -2.00, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.85). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for overall fetal loss/neonatal death (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), or fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53)., Authors' Conclusions: All women should be offered midwife-led models of care and women should be encouraged to ask for this option.

Objective: To describe the dominant policies and practices that have governed childbirth in Ireland, and to outline the progress made towards the introduction of midwifery-led care in one health region., Literature Review: A review of maternity-care policies in Ireland was conducted using government and regional health-authority documents and two historical reviews of government policies. A search was also carried out in PubMed and cinahl databases, using the keywords 'maternity care', 'childbirth', 'policy', 'midwifery-led', 'Ireland/Irish', with relevant Boolean and string operands. Childbirth as a social process is influenced by the model of care, and affects the physical and psychological outcomes for the woman and her family. In Ireland, routine intervention in labour is common, but, since the early 1990s, some changes in the Irish maternity services have taken place. Pilot projects on community midwifery have been introduced in some areas. Challenges to the provision of maternity care in the Health Service Executive, North Eastern area (formerly the North-Eastern Health Board) led to the production of the Kinder report, which included a recommendation to introduce pilot midwifery-led units (MLUs). THE INTRODUCTION OF MIDWIFERY-LED CARE: A Maternity Services Taskforce was established in January 2002 with a wide remit, including facilitation of the establishment of MLUs in Cavan General Hospital, Cavan and Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, Co. Louth. The MLUs are being evaluated within the context of a randomised trial known as 'the MidU study', which compares midwife-led care with the present system of medical-led care for women who are at low risk of complications during pregnancy and labour., Conclusion: The journey to midwifery-led care in Ireland has been a long one. The phased introduction of MLUs, which are subject to rigorous evaluation, will provide quality evidence upon which to base the future development of maternity care across Ireland.

Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of a fetal monitoring education programme on midwives' fetal monitoring knowledge and intrapartum cardiotocograph interpretation skills., Design: two group, before-after, randomised-controlled trial., Setting: two maternity hospitals in the Republic of Ireland., Participants: 55 midwives were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n=27) or the control group (n=28)., Interventions: the experimental group participated in a 1.5 hr fetal monitoring education programme, whereas the control group attended an alternative education programme consisting of a non-fetal-monitoring-related video presentation., Measurements: the primary outcomes of interest were fetal monitoring knowledge and intrapartum cardiotocograph interpretation skills test., Findings: in the fetal monitoring knowledge post-test, the median percentage correct responses for the control and experimental groups were 56% (IQR 18.75) and 88% (IQR 12.5), respectively. This difference, 31.2%, was statistically significant (U=78.5, 95.1% CI -31.25 to -18.75, p<0.001). In the intrapartum cardiotocograph interpretation skills post-test, the median percentage correct responses for the control and experimental groups were 55.6% (IQR 16.7) and 66.7% (IQR 22.2), respectively. This difference, of 11.1%, was statistically significant (U=186, 95.2% CI -16.67 to -5.56, p<0.001)., Key Conclusions and Implications for Practice: attendance at a short (1.5 hr), in-service fetal monitoring education programme can increase midwives' fetal monitoring knowledge and cardiotocograph interpretation skills. The availability of in-service fetal monitoring education programmes is sporadic, often less than recommended, and is a cause for concern.

Aim: This paper reports an examination of intra- and inter-observer agreement in midwives' visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocographs (CTGs)., Background: The issue of intra- and inter-observer agreement in the interpretation of CTG interpretation has serious implications for the validity of electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and subsequent decisions on intrapartum management. However, no studies were found that assessed intra- and inter-observer agreement in midwives' interpretations of CTG tracings., Methods: Twenty-eight midwives independently interpreted three intrapartum CTG tracings on two separate occasions using a self-administered Cardiotocograph Interpretation Skills Test. Inter-rater agreement in interpretation was assessed by cross-tabulating the two sets of raw data obtained at time 1 and time 2 and computing Cohen's Kappa (kappa). Intra-rater agreement was assessed by computing kappa for each rater with the two sets of raw data (time 1 and time 2) obtained from each individual. The data were collected in 2000., Results: Overall intra-rater agreement ranged from 'fair to good' (kappa = 0.48) to 'excellent' (kappa = 0.92). Raters' classifications altered in 18% (n = 5) of cases for the normal tracing, in 29% (n = 8) for the suspicious tracing and in 11% (n = 3) for the pathological tracing. Inter-rater agreement was fair to good, with kappa statistics ranging from 0.65 to 0.74, respectively. Agreement was highest in the classification of decelerations (kappa = 0.79) and lowest in the assessment of baseline variability (kappa = 0.50). Overall inter-rater agreement was highest in the suspicious tracing (kappa = 0.77, excellent) and lowest in the normal tracing (kappa = 0.54, fair to good)., Conclusion: Inter- and intra-observer variability are intrinsic characteristics of the interpretation of intrapartum CTGs. Levels of agreement revealed degrees of variation that expose room for improvement. Efforts are needed to reduce inter- and intra-observer variation in interpretation of intrapartum CTG tracings. In addition, research should focus on the development and evaluation of non-invasive, low observer variability methods of intrapartum assessment of fetal well-being. The subjectivity of CTG interpretation and inconsistencies in interpretation should also be considered in intrapartum management, clinical audit and in medico-legal settings.

Recognition of the measurement of women's experiences of their maternity care as a critical component of care quality evaluation has led to a proliferation of instruments to measure this concept. However, the suboptimal methodological and psychometric quality of these instruments, or the lack of reporting of same, hinders the credibility and efficient use of the arising results, which often serve as an indicator for the direction of limited resources within maternity services. To review systematically and critically appraise self-report survey instruments measuring women's experiences of their maternity care. A systematic review was conducted using comprehensive searches of the CINAHL, OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE citation databases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and a stepped approach employed to facilitate evaluation of the methodological and psychometric quality of included instruments. 4905 records were obtained from database searches. Additional records were obtained via reference checking and by expert suggestion. Following stepped screening, 40 papers related to 20 instruments are included in this review. Findings indicate that evidence of the methodological and psychometric quality have not been reported for many included instruments. Published evidence of the methodological and psychometric quality of self-report survey instruments to evaluate women's experiences of their maternity care is lacking. The conduct and reporting of future development processes of such instruments can be improved. Systematic review PROSPERO registration : CRD42018105325. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To outline the traditional worldviews of healthcare research and discuss the benefits and challenges of using mixed methods approaches in contributing to the development of nursing and midwifery knowledge. Background There has been much debate about the contribution of mixed methods research to nursing and midwifery knowledge in recent years. Data sources A sequential exploratory design is used as an exemplar of a mixed methods approach. The study discussed used a combination of focus-group interviews and a quantitative instrument to obtain a fuller understanding of women's experiences of childbirth. Review methods In the mixed methods study example, qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and quantitative data using regression analysis. Discussion Polarised debates about the veracity, philosophical integrity and motivation for conducting mixed methods research have largely abated. A mixed methods approach can contribute to a deeper, more contextual understanding of a variety of subjects and experiences; as a result, it furthers knowledge that can be used in clinical practice. Conclusion The purpose of the research study should be the main instigator when choosing from an array of mixed methods research designs. Mixed methods research offers a variety of models that can augment investigative capabilities and provide richer data than can a discrete method alone. Implications for practice/research This paper offers an example of an exploratory, sequential approach to investigating women's childbirth experiences. A clear framework for the conduct and integration of the different phases of the mixed methods research process is provided. This approach can be used by practitioners and policy makers to improve practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of the clinical nurse/midwife specialist and advanced nurse/midwife practitioner is complex not least because of the diversity in how the roles are operationalised across health settings and within multidisciplinary teams. This aim of this paper is to use The SCAPE Study: Specialist Clinical and Advanced Practitioner Evaluation in Ireland to illustrate how case study was used to strengthen a Sequential Explanatory Design. Methods: In Phase 1, clinicians identified indicators of specialist and advanced practice which were then used to guide the instrumental case study design which formed the second phase of the larger study. Phase 2 used matched case studies to evaluate the effectiveness of specialist and advanced practitioners on clinical outcomes for service users. Data were collected through observation, documentary analysis, and interviews. Observations were made of 23 Clinical Specialists or Advanced Practitioners, and 23 matched clinicians in similar matched nonpostholding sites, while they delivered care. Forty-one service users, 41 clinicians, and 23 Directors of Nursing or Midwifery were interviewed, and 279 service users completed a survey based on the components of CS and AP practice identified in Phase 1. A coding framework, and the generation of cross tabulation matrices in NVivo, was used to make explicit how the outcome measures were confirmed and validated from multiple sources. This strengthened the potential to examine single cases that seemed 'different', and allowed for cases to be redefined. Phase 3 involved interviews with policy-makers to set the findings in context. Results: Case study is a powerful research strategy to use within sequential explanatory mixed method designs, and adds completeness to the exploration of complex issues in clinical practice. The design is flexible, allowing the use of multiple data collection methods from both qualitative and quantitative paradigms. Conclusions: Multiple approaches to data collection are needed to evaluate the impact of complex roles and interventions in health care outcomes and service delivery. Case study design is an appropriate methodology to use when study outcomes relate to clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: to examine the current provision of pre-ultrasound information to women; to determine if the information provided was related to women''s knowledge of the routine second trimester ultrasound; and to describe women''s expectations of the scan. Design: a descriptive survey, before and after design. Setting: tertiary referral centre in the Republic of Ireland. Participants: a convenience sample of pregnant women attending for routine second trimester ultrasound scan. Measurements: self-report questionnaires were used to explore the availability of information about the test, the extent of women''s knowledge and expectations of the examination, and the degree to which expectations were achieved. Findings: most women received little information from health professionals about the capability and limitations of the scan, and had expectations that exceeded the purpose and ability of the examination. Most women, however, stated that their expectations were met in most cases. Although the routine ultrasound in the study site is not a targeted fetal anatomical survey, most women were concerned with this aspect of the test. Key conclusions: if women are to have realistic expectations of the routine ultrasound scan, then improvements are required in the provision of pre-ultrasound information, particularly in relation to the technological limitations of the examination. Consideration should be given to the context of the high appeal associated with visualising the fetus for women when unachievable expectations are reported as having been met. Implications for practice: any development of prenatal screening programmes that will uncover fetal abnormalities needs to be considered in context, in particular when termination of pregnancy is not available within the jurisdiction. Women had expectations of the examination that could not, because of technological limitations, have been met by the examination, but which they perceived to have been met. Knowledge of the purpose, capabilities and limitations of the routine second trimester ultrasound scan was not influenced by the mode of information provision. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Women who have had a caesarean section may have a preference for birth mode during their subsequent pregnancy, either 'vaginal birth after caesarean' (VBAC) or 'elective repeat caesarean section' (ERCS). A mismatch between the preferred and actual birth mode may result in an impaired postnatal Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). This study examined the associations between antenatal birth mode preferences, the actual birth mode and postnatal HRQoL in women with one previous caesarean section in three European countries. Prospective longitudinal survey, as a part of a cluster randomised trial (OptiBIRTH) Fifteen maternity units in three European countries: Germany (5), Ireland (5) and Italy (5). Women (≥ aged 18 years) living in Germany, Ireland and Italy with one previous caesarean section. The sample consisted of 862 women with complete antenatal and postpartum data. Women's preference for birth mode after one previous caesarean section was assessed at inclusion to the trial, and HRQoL was assessed antenatally and at three months postpartum using the Short-Form Six-Dimension health survey. Based on women's preferences and actual birth mode six groups were determined: "match VBAC-VBAC" (preference for vaginal birth, actual mode of birth vaginal birth), "match ERCS-ERCS" (preference for caesarean section, actual mode of birth elective repeat caesarean section), "match ERCS-EMCS" (preference for caesarean section, actual mode of birth emergency repeat caesarean section), "mismatch VBAC-ERCS" (preference for vaginal birth, actual mode of birth elective repeat caesarean section), "mismatch VBAC-EMCS" (preference for vaginal birth, actual mode of birth emergency repeat caesarean section) and "no preference". Associations between the preferred and actual birth mode were examined using univariate and multivariate analyses. Women with preference for vaginal birth but who gave birth by elective repeat caesarean section (mismatch VBAC-ERCS) had a lower postnatal HRQoL compared to women with a preference for vaginal birth who actually had a birth vaginally (match VBAC-VBAC, p = 0.02). Poor antenatal HRQoL scores (p < 0.01) and maternal readmission postpartum (p = 0.03) are cofounding factors for poorer postnatal HRQoL scores. The results show that women with a preference for a vaginal birth who gave birth by an elective repeat caesarean section had a significantly lower HRQoL at three months postnatal. The long-term consequences and psychological health of women who do not achieve a vaginal birth after caesarean require further consideration and research. Attention should be given to the long-term impact of a mismatch in preferred and actual mode on the psychological health of women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence based practice has been associated with better quality of care in many situations, but it has not been able to address increasing need and demand in healthcare globally and stagnant or decreasing healthcare resources. Implementation of value-based healthcare could address many important challenges in health care systems worldwide. Scaling up exemplary high value care practices offers the potential to ensure values-driven maternal and newborn care for all women and babies.Discussion: Increased use of healthcare interventions over the last century have been associated with reductions in maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity. However, over an optimum threshold, these are associated with increases in adverse effects and inappropriate use of scarce resources. The Quality Maternal and Newborn Care framework provides an example of what value based maternity care might look like. To deliver value based maternal and newborn care, a system-level shift is needed, 'from fragmented care focused on identification and treatment of pathology for the minority to skilled care for all'. Ideally, resources would be allocated at population and individual level to ensure care is woman-centred instead of institution/ profession centred but oftentimes, the drivers for spending resources are 'the demands and beliefs of the acute sector'. We argue that decisions to allocate resources to high value activities, such as continuity of carer, need to be made at the macro level in the knowledge that these investments will relieve pressure on acute services while also ensuring the delivery of appropriate and high value care in the long run. To ensure that high value preventive and supportive care can be delivered, it is important that separate staff and money are allocated to, for example, models of continuity of carer to prevent shortages of resources due to rising demands of the acute services. To achieve value based maternal and newborn care, mechanisms are needed to ensure adequate resource allocation to high value maternity care activities that should be separate from the resource demands of acute maternity services. Funding arrangements should support, where wanted and needed, seamless movement of women and neonates between systems of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]