Maternal satisfaction with group care: a systematic review

Fitim Sadiku BS , Hana Bucinca PharmD , Florence Talrich PhD , Vlorian Molliqaj MS , Erza Selmani MS , Christine McCourt PhD , Marlies Rijnders PhD , George Little MD , David C. Goodman MD, MS , Sharon Schindler Rising CNM, MSN , Ilir Hoxha MD, PhD
{"title":"Maternal satisfaction with group care: a systematic review","authors":"Fitim Sadiku BS ,&nbsp;Hana Bucinca PharmD ,&nbsp;Florence Talrich PhD ,&nbsp;Vlorian Molliqaj MS ,&nbsp;Erza Selmani MS ,&nbsp;Christine McCourt PhD ,&nbsp;Marlies Rijnders PhD ,&nbsp;George Little MD ,&nbsp;David C. Goodman MD, MS ,&nbsp;Sharon Schindler Rising CNM, MSN ,&nbsp;Ilir Hoxha MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.xagr.2023.100301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><p>This review examined the quantitative relationship between group care and overall maternal satisfaction compared with standard individual care.</p></div><div><h3>DATA SOURCES</h3><p>We searched CINAHL, Clinical Trials, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from the beginning of 2003 through June 2023.</p></div><div><h3>STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA</h3><p>We included studies that reported the association between overall maternal satisfaction and centering-based perinatal care where the control group was standard individual care. We included randomized and observational designs.</p></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><p>Screening and independent data extraction were carried out by 4 researchers. We extracted data on study characteristics, population, design, intervention characteristics, satisfaction measurement, and outcome. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane tools for Clinical Trials (RoB2) and observational studies (ROBINS-I). We summarized the study, intervention, and satisfaction measurement characteristics. We presented the effect estimates of each study descriptively using a forest plot without performing an overall meta-analysis. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of variations in study designs and methods used to measure satisfaction. We presented studies reporting mean values and odds ratios in 2 separate plots. The presentation of studies in forest plots was organized by type of study design.</p></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><p>A total of 7685 women participated in the studies included in the review. We found that most studies (ie, 17/20) report higher satisfaction with group care than standard individual care. Some of the noted results are lower satisfaction with group care in both studies in Sweden and 1 of the 2 studies from Canada. Higher satisfaction was present in 14 of 15 studies reporting CenteringPregnancy, Group Antenatal Care (1 study), and Adapted CenteringPregnancy (1 study). Although indicative of higher maternal satisfaction, the results are often based on statistically insignificant effect estimates with wide confidence intervals derived from small sample sizes.</p></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><p>The evidence confirms higher maternal satisfaction with group care than with standard care. This likely reflects group care methodology, which combines clinical assessment, facilitated health promotion discussion, and community-building opportunities. This evidence will be helpful for the implementation of group care globally.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72141,"journal":{"name":"AJOG global reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577823001430/pdfft?md5=3f2fb0a80315614f9f68ea666d355b74&pid=1-s2.0-S2666577823001430-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOG global reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577823001430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This review examined the quantitative relationship between group care and overall maternal satisfaction compared with standard individual care.

DATA SOURCES

We searched CINAHL, Clinical Trials, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from the beginning of 2003 through June 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies that reported the association between overall maternal satisfaction and centering-based perinatal care where the control group was standard individual care. We included randomized and observational designs.

METHODS

Screening and independent data extraction were carried out by 4 researchers. We extracted data on study characteristics, population, design, intervention characteristics, satisfaction measurement, and outcome. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane tools for Clinical Trials (RoB2) and observational studies (ROBINS-I). We summarized the study, intervention, and satisfaction measurement characteristics. We presented the effect estimates of each study descriptively using a forest plot without performing an overall meta-analysis. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of variations in study designs and methods used to measure satisfaction. We presented studies reporting mean values and odds ratios in 2 separate plots. The presentation of studies in forest plots was organized by type of study design.

RESULTS

A total of 7685 women participated in the studies included in the review. We found that most studies (ie, 17/20) report higher satisfaction with group care than standard individual care. Some of the noted results are lower satisfaction with group care in both studies in Sweden and 1 of the 2 studies from Canada. Higher satisfaction was present in 14 of 15 studies reporting CenteringPregnancy, Group Antenatal Care (1 study), and Adapted CenteringPregnancy (1 study). Although indicative of higher maternal satisfaction, the results are often based on statistically insignificant effect estimates with wide confidence intervals derived from small sample sizes.

CONCLUSION

The evidence confirms higher maternal satisfaction with group care than with standard care. This likely reflects group care methodology, which combines clinical assessment, facilitated health promotion discussion, and community-building opportunities. This evidence will be helpful for the implementation of group care globally.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
产妇对集体护理的满意度:系统回顾
数据来源我们检索了 CINAHL、Clinical Trials、The Cochrane Library、PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science 等数据库,检索时间为 2003 年初至 2023 年 6 月。研究筛选标准我们纳入了报告产妇总体满意度与以中心护理为基础的围产期护理之间关系的研究,对照组为标准的个体护理。我们纳入了随机设计和观察设计。方法由 4 名研究人员进行筛选和独立数据提取。我们提取了有关研究特点、人群、设计、干预特点、满意度测量和结果的数据。我们使用 Cochrane 临床试验工具(RoB2)和观察性研究工具(ROBINS-I)进行了质量评估。我们总结了研究、干预和满意度测量的特点。我们使用森林图描述性地展示了每项研究的效果估计值,但未进行整体荟萃分析。由于研究设计和满意度测量方法存在差异,因此无法进行荟萃分析。我们将报告平均值和几率比的研究分别绘制成 2 幅图谱。结果共有 7685 名女性参与了本综述所纳入的研究。我们发现,大多数研究(即 17/20)报告的集体护理满意度高于标准个人护理。一些值得注意的结果是,瑞典的两项研究和加拿大的两项研究中的一项对集体护理的满意度较低。在 15 项研究中,有 14 项报告了较高的满意度,这些研究包括中心化孕期护理、集体产前护理(1 项研究)和适应性中心化孕期护理(1 项研究)。尽管表明产妇满意度较高,但这些结果往往是基于统计学上不显著的效果估计值,且由于样本量较小,置信区间较宽。这很可能反映了集体护理的方法,它结合了临床评估、促进健康的讨论和社区建设机会。这些证据将有助于在全球范围内实施集体护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOG global reports
AJOG global reports Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Perinatology, Pediatrics and Child Health, Urology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acute Sheehan syndrome following massive postpartum hemorrhage due to vulvar hematoma The role of the RHOA/ROCK pathway in the regulation of myometrial stages throughout pregnancy Thoughts and opinions about fertility preservation and family building from the transgender community—an interview-based approach Guillain-Barré syndrome in pregnancy: a case report and review of the literature Using machine learning to predict the risk of developing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy using a contemporary nulliparous cohort
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1