Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Project 20: Midwives’ insight into continuity of care models for women with social risk factors: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Continuity of care models are known to improve clinical outcomes for women and their babies, but it is not understood how. A realist synthesis of how women with social risk factors experience UK maternity care reported mechanisms thought to improve clinical outcomes and experiences. As part of a broader programme of work to test those theories and fill gaps in the literature base we conducted focus groups with midwives working within continuity of care models of care for women with social factors that put them at a higher chance of having poor birth outcomes. These risk factors can include poverty and social isolation, asylum or refugee status, domestic abuse, mental illness, learning difficulties, and substance abuse problems.

          Objective

          To explore the insights of midwives working in continuity models of care for women with social risk factors in order to understand the resources they provide, and how the model of care can improve women’s outcomes.

          Design

          Realist methodology was used to gain a deeper understanding of how women react to specific resources that the models of care offer and how these resources are thought to lead to particular outcomes for women. Twelve midwives participated, six from a continuity of care model implemented in a community setting serving an area of deprivation in London, and six from a continuity of care model for women with social risk factors, based within a large teaching hospital in London.

          Findings

          Three main themes were identified: ‘Perceptions of the model of care, ‘Tailoring the service to meet women’s needs’, ‘Going above and beyond’. Each theme is broken down into three subthemes to reveal specific resources or mechanisms which midwives felt might have an impact on women’s outcomes, and how women with different social risk factors respond to these mechanisms.

          Conclusions/implications for practice

          Overall the midwives in both models of care felt the service was beneficial to women and had a positive impact on their outcomes. It was thought the trusting relationships they had built with women enabled midwives to guide women through a fragmented, unfamiliar system and respond to their individual physical, emotional, and social needs, whilst ensuring follow-up of appointments and test results. Midwives felt that for these women the impact of a trusting relationship affected how much information women disclosed, allowing for enhanced, needs led, holistic care. Interesting mechanisms were identified when discussing women who had social care involvement with midwives revealing techniques they used to advocate for women and help them to regain trust in the system and demonstrate their parenting abilities. Differences in how each team provided care and its impact on women’s outcomes were considered with the midwives in the community-based model reporting how their location enabled them to help women integrate into their local community and make use of specialist services. The study demonstrates the complexity of these models of care, with midwives using innovative and compassionate ways of working to meet the multifaceted needs of this population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Socioeconomic disparities in adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review.

          Adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth and low birth weight, have serious health consequences across the life course. Socioeconomic disparities in birth outcomes have not been the subject of a recent systematic review. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the association of socioeconomic disadvantage with adverse birth outcomes, with specific attention to the strength and consistency of effects across socioeconomic measures, birth outcomes, and populations. Relevant articles published from 1999 to 2007 were obtained through electronic database searches and manual searches of reference lists. English-language studies from industrialized countries were included if (1) study objectives included examination of a socioeconomic disparity in a birth outcome and (2) results were presented on the association between a socioeconomic predictor and a birth outcome related to birth weight, gestational age, or intrauterine growth. Two reviewers extracted data and independently rated study quality; data were analyzed in 2008-2009. Ninety-three of 106 studies reported a significant association, overall or within a population subgroup, between a socioeconomic measure and a birth outcome. Socioeconomic disadvantage was consistently associated with increased risk across socioeconomic measures, birth outcomes, and countries; many studies observed racial/ethnic differences in the effect of socioeconomic measures. Socioeconomic differences in birth outcomes remain pervasive, with substantial variation by racial or ethnic subgroup, and are associated with disadvantage measured at multiple levels (individual/family, neighborhood) and time points (childhood, adulthood), and with adverse health behaviors that are themselves socially patterned. Future reviews should focus on identifying interventions to successfully reduce socioeconomic disparities in birth outcomes. 2010 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Focus groups in nursing research: methodological perspectives.

            Focus groups have been increasingly used as a data collection method in nursing research. The key feature of focus groups is the active interaction among participants to explore their views and opinions. In this respect, focus groups are distinct from other methods such as Delphi groups, nominal groups, brainstorming, and consensus panels, which seek to determine a consensus between participants. Compared with other data collection methods, it can be concluded that the real strength of focus groups is not simply in exploring what participants have to say, but in providing insights into the sources of complex behaviors and motivations. The aim of this paper is to present an overview of the focus group as a research tool in nursing research, particularly in nursing education. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The woman's birth experience---the effect of interpersonal relationships and continuity of care.

              the aim of the present study was to gain a deeper understanding of how relational continuity in the childbearing process may influence the woman's birth experience. RESEARCH DESIGN/SETTING: a Q-methodological approach was chosen, as it allows the researcher to systematically assess subjectivity. 23 women were invited to sort a sample of 48 statements regarding their subjective view of birth experience after having participated in a pilot project in Norway, where six midwifery students provided continuity of care to 58 women throughout the childbearing process. The sorting patterns were subsequently factor-analysed, using the statistical software 'PQ' which reveals one strong and one weaker factor. The consensus statements and the defining statements for the two factors were later interpreted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Midwifery
                Midwifery
                Midwifery
                Churchill Livingstone
                0266-6138
                1532-3099
                1 May 2020
                May 2020
                : 84
                : 102654
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Women and Children's Health Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, 10th Floor, North Wing St. Thomas' Hospital Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK
                [b ]Centre for Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professional Research, First Floor Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7NF, UK
                [c ]Institute for Health and Human Development, University of East London, UH250, Stratford Campus, London, E15 4LZ, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Hannah.rayment-jones@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Article
                S0266-6138(20)30027-9 102654
                10.1016/j.midw.2020.102654
                7233135
                32066030
                a6bcdc1f-e659-4ab1-93ba-065c1a96d045
                © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 18 November 2019
                : 22 January 2020
                : 24 January 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                continuity of care,,models of maternity care,relationship-based care,social risk factors

                Comments

                Comment on this article