Barriers and facilitators for implementation of continuity of midwife care: A review of reviews

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING Women and Birth Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.wombi.2025.101892
Gila Zarbiv , Saritte Perlman , Moriah E. Ellen
{"title":"Barriers and facilitators for implementation of continuity of midwife care: A review of reviews","authors":"Gila Zarbiv ,&nbsp;Saritte Perlman ,&nbsp;Moriah E. Ellen","doi":"10.1016/j.wombi.2025.101892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Continuity of Midwife Care (CoMC) significantly improves maternal and neonatal outcomes, including reducing mortality. However, global implementation remains limited, hindered by various barriers and facilitators across healthcare settings. This review of reviews synthesizes existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to CoMC implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as an analytical tool.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, a review of reviews was conducted. Comprehensive searches of Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and grey literature identified reviews published between 2013 and 2024 that addressed CoMC implementation. Data were categorized by CFIR 2.0 domains: innovation characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and implementation processes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Six reviews met inclusion criteria. Barriers to CoMC were systemic and included hierarchical power dynamics, limited midwife autonomy, workforce shortages, and inadequate policy support. Facilitators were more context-specific, influenced by healthcare infrastructure and resources. Key facilitators included supportive leadership, collaborative care models, and national guidelines promoting CoMC.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Barriers to CoMC are deeply embedded in healthcare systems, while facilitators are highly dependent on local contexts. Bridging the evidence-practice gap requires applying implementation science methodologies, such as CFIR, to inform policy and intervention strategies. Collaboration between countries with similar healthcare systems can foster knowledge-sharing and adaptation of successful CoMC models. These findings offer actionable insights for policymakers and healthcare professionals to advance CoMC integration globally.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48868,"journal":{"name":"Women and Birth","volume":"38 2","pages":"Article 101892"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women and Birth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871519225000265","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Continuity of Midwife Care (CoMC) significantly improves maternal and neonatal outcomes, including reducing mortality. However, global implementation remains limited, hindered by various barriers and facilitators across healthcare settings. This review of reviews synthesizes existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to CoMC implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as an analytical tool.

Methods

Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, a review of reviews was conducted. Comprehensive searches of Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and grey literature identified reviews published between 2013 and 2024 that addressed CoMC implementation. Data were categorized by CFIR 2.0 domains: innovation characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and implementation processes.

Results

Six reviews met inclusion criteria. Barriers to CoMC were systemic and included hierarchical power dynamics, limited midwife autonomy, workforce shortages, and inadequate policy support. Facilitators were more context-specific, influenced by healthcare infrastructure and resources. Key facilitators included supportive leadership, collaborative care models, and national guidelines promoting CoMC.

Conclusion

Barriers to CoMC are deeply embedded in healthcare systems, while facilitators are highly dependent on local contexts. Bridging the evidence-practice gap requires applying implementation science methodologies, such as CFIR, to inform policy and intervention strategies. Collaboration between countries with similar healthcare systems can foster knowledge-sharing and adaptation of successful CoMC models. These findings offer actionable insights for policymakers and healthcare professionals to advance CoMC integration 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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Women and Birth
Women and Birth NURSING-OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
13.20%
发文量
371
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: Women and Birth is the official journal of the Australian College of Midwives (ACM). It is a midwifery journal that publishes on all matters that affect women and birth, from pre-conceptual counselling, through pregnancy, birth, and the first six weeks postnatal. All papers accepted will draw from and contribute to the relevant contemporary research, policy and/or theoretical literature. We seek research papers, quality assurances papers (with ethical approval) discussion papers, clinical practice papers, case studies and original literature reviews. Our women-centred focus is inclusive of the family, fetus and newborn, both well and sick, and covers both healthy and complex pregnancies and births. The journal seeks papers that take a woman-centred focus on maternity services, epidemiology, primary health care, reproductive psycho/physiology, midwifery practice, theory, research, education, management and leadership. We also seek relevant papers on maternal mental health and neonatal well-being, natural and complementary therapies, local, national and international policy, management, politics, economics and societal and cultural issues as they affect childbearing women and their families. Topics may include, where appropriate, neonatal care, child and family health, women’s health, related to pregnancy, birth and the postpartum, including lactation. Interprofessional papers relevant to midwifery are welcome. Articles are double blind peer-reviewed, primarily by experts in the field of the submitted work.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board “How are you going to remove that cobweb?” Midwifery Services Framework implementation in Zambia: A case study “I have to be strong”: A qualitative study of parental bereavement experiences in Uganda following the death of their baby Who is in the centre? A qualitative study on midwives’ experience of working with central fetal monitoring system Barriers and facilitators for implementation of continuity of midwife care: A review of reviews
×
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