原住民孕产妇和婴儿的结果与妇女的助产护理经验:混合方法系统综述。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care Pub Date : 2024-06-19 DOI:10.1111/birt.12841
Deborah McNeil, Sarah A Elliott, Angie Wong, Seija Kromm, Liza Bialy, Stephanie Montesanti, Adam Purificati-Fuñe, Sonje Juul, Pamela Roach, Jackie Bromely, Esther Tailfeathers, Maddie Amyotte, Richard T Oster
{"title":"原住民孕产妇和婴儿的结果与妇女的助产护理经验:混合方法系统综述。","authors":"Deborah McNeil, Sarah A Elliott, Angie Wong, Seija Kromm, Liza Bialy, Stephanie Montesanti, Adam Purificati-Fuñe, Sonje Juul, Pamela Roach, Jackie Bromely, Esther Tailfeathers, Maddie Amyotte, Richard T Oster","doi":"10.1111/birt.12841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The impact of midwifery, and especially Indigenous midwifery, care for Indigenous women and communities has not been comprehensively reviewed. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a mixed-methods systematic review to understand Indigenous maternal and infant outcomes and women's' experiences with midwifery care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched nine databases to identify primary studies reporting on midwifery and Indigenous maternal and infant birth outcomes and experiences, published in English since 2000. We synthesized quantitative and qualitative outcome data using a convergent segregated mixed-methods approach and used a mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT) to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (ATSI QAT) was used to appraise the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 3044 records, we included 35 individual studies with 55% (19 studies) reporting on maternal and infant health outcomes. Comparative studies (n = 13) showed no significant differences in mortality rates but identified reduced preterm births, earlier prenatal care, and an increased number of prenatal visits for Indigenous women receiving midwifery care. Quality of care studies indicated a preference for midwifery care among Indigenous women. Sixteen qualitative studies highlighted three key findings - culturally safe care, holistic care, and improved access to care. The majority of studies were of high methodological quality (91% met ≥80% criteria), while only 14% of studies were considered to have appropriately included Indigenous perspectives.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review demonstrates the value of midwifery care for Indigenous women, providing evidence to support policy recommendations promoting midwifery care as a physically and culturally safe model for Indigenous women and families.</p>","PeriodicalId":55350,"journal":{"name":"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Indigenous maternal and infant outcomes and women's experiences of midwifery care: A mixed-methods systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Deborah McNeil, Sarah A Elliott, Angie Wong, Seija Kromm, Liza Bialy, Stephanie Montesanti, Adam Purificati-Fuñe, Sonje Juul, Pamela Roach, Jackie Bromely, Esther Tailfeathers, Maddie Amyotte, Richard T Oster\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/birt.12841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The impact of midwifery, and especially Indigenous midwifery, care for Indigenous women and communities has not been comprehensively reviewed. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a mixed-methods systematic review to understand Indigenous maternal and infant outcomes and women's' experiences with midwifery care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched nine databases to identify primary studies reporting on midwifery and Indigenous maternal and infant birth outcomes and experiences, published in English since 2000. We synthesized quantitative and qualitative outcome data using a convergent segregated mixed-methods approach and used a mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT) to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (ATSI QAT) was used to appraise the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 3044 records, we included 35 individual studies with 55% (19 studies) reporting on maternal and infant health outcomes. Comparative studies (n = 13) showed no significant differences in mortality rates but identified reduced preterm births, earlier prenatal care, and an increased number of prenatal visits for Indigenous women receiving midwifery care. Quality of care studies indicated a preference for midwifery care among Indigenous women. Sixteen qualitative studies highlighted three key findings - culturally safe care, holistic care, and improved access to care. The majority of studies were of high methodological quality (91% met ≥80% criteria), while only 14% of studies were considered to have appropriately included Indigenous perspectives.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review demonstrates the value of midwifery care for Indigenous women, providing evidence to support policy recommendations promoting midwifery care as a physically and culturally safe model for Indigenous women and families.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12841\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12841","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

背景:助产护理,尤其是土著助产护理对土著妇女和社区的影响尚未得到全面审查。为了填补这一知识空白,我们采用混合方法进行了系统性综述,以了解原住民孕产妇和婴儿的结局以及妇女对助产护理的体验:我们搜索了九个数据库,以确定自 2000 年以来用英语发表的有关助产和土著母婴分娩结果和经验的主要研究报告。我们采用聚合分离混合方法综合了定量和定性结果数据,并使用混合方法评估工具 (MMAT) 评估了纳入研究的方法质量。土著居民和托雷斯海峡岛民质量评估工具(ATSI QAT)用于评估证据中是否纳入了土著居民的观点:在 3044 条记录中,我们纳入了 35 项单独研究,其中 55%(19 项研究)报告了母婴健康结果。比较研究(n = 13)显示死亡率无明显差异,但发现接受助产护理的土著妇女早产率降低、产前护理提前,产前检查次数增加。护理质量研究表明,土著妇女更喜欢助产护理。16 项定性研究强调了三项重要发现--文化安全护理、整体护理和改善护理服务。大多数研究的方法质量较高(91%符合≥80%的标准),而只有14%的研究被认为适当纳入了土著观点:本综述证明了助产护理对土著妇女的价值,为政策建议提供了证据支持,促进助产护理成为土著妇女和家庭的一种身体和文化安全模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Indigenous maternal and infant outcomes and women's experiences of midwifery care: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Background: The impact of midwifery, and especially Indigenous midwifery, care for Indigenous women and communities has not been comprehensively reviewed. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a mixed-methods systematic review to understand Indigenous maternal and infant outcomes and women's' experiences with midwifery care.

Methods: We searched nine databases to identify primary studies reporting on midwifery and Indigenous maternal and infant birth outcomes and experiences, published in English since 2000. We synthesized quantitative and qualitative outcome data using a convergent segregated mixed-methods approach and used a mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT) to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (ATSI QAT) was used to appraise the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in the evidence.

Results: Out of 3044 records, we included 35 individual studies with 55% (19 studies) reporting on maternal and infant health outcomes. Comparative studies (n = 13) showed no significant differences in mortality rates but identified reduced preterm births, earlier prenatal care, and an increased number of prenatal visits for Indigenous women receiving midwifery care. Quality of care studies indicated a preference for midwifery care among Indigenous women. Sixteen qualitative studies highlighted three key findings - culturally safe care, holistic care, and improved access to care. The majority of studies were of high methodological quality (91% met ≥80% criteria), while only 14% of studies were considered to have appropriately included Indigenous perspectives.

Conclusion: This review demonstrates the value of midwifery care for Indigenous women, providing evidence to support policy recommendations promoting midwifery care as a physically and culturally safe model for Indigenous women and families.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care is a multidisciplinary, refereed journal devoted to issues and practices in the care of childbearing women, infants, and families. It is written by and for professionals in maternal and neonatal health, nurses, midwives, physicians, public health workers, doulas, social scientists, childbirth educators, lactation counselors, epidemiologists, and other health caregivers and policymakers in perinatal care.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A History of Cesarean Birth as a Risk Factor for Postpartum Hemorrhage Even After Successful Planned Vaginal Birth. Pregnant Women's Care Needs During Early Labor-A Scoping Review. Sociodemographic and Health-Related Risk Factors Associated With Planned and Emergency Cesarean Births in Mexico. Validating the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework Index: A Global Tool for Quality-of-Care Evaluations.
×
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