MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2128669555 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2444

The experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating to provide birthing care: a systematic review

2015· review· en· W2128669555 sur OpenAlexaff
Danielle Macdonald, Erna Snelgrove‐Clarke, Marsha Campbell‐Yeo, Megan Aston, Melissa Helwig, Kathy A. Baker

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2015
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Établissements canadiensNova Scotia Health AuthorityIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNursingMedicineQualitative researchMaternity careHealth careFocus groupSystematic reviewPostpartum periodPregnancyMEDLINESociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Collaboration has been associated with improved health outcomes in maternity care. Collaborative relationships between midwives and physicians have been a focus of literature regarding collaboration in maternity care. However despite the front line role of nurses in the provision of maternity care, there has not yet been a systematic review conducted about the experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating to provide birthing care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to identify, appraise and synthesize qualitative evidence on the experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating to provide birthing care.Specifically, the review question was: what are the experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating to provide birthing care? INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered studies that included educated and licensed midwives and nurses with any length of practice. Nurses who work in labor and delivery, postpartum care, prenatal care, public health and community health were included in this systematic review.This review considered studies that investigated the experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating during the provision of birthing care. Experiences, of any duration, included any interactions between midwives and nurses working in collaboration to provide birthing care.Birthing care referred to: (a) supportive care throughout the pregnancy, labor, delivery and postpartum, (b) administrative tasks throughout the pregnancy, labor, delivery and postpartum, and (c) clinical skills throughout the pregnancy, labor, delivery and postpartum. The postpartum period included the six weeks after delivery.The review considered English language studies that focused on qualitative data including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research.This review considered qualitative studies that explored the experiences of collaboration in areas where midwives and nurses work together. Examples of these areas included: hospitals, birth centers, client homes, health clinics and other public or community health settings. These settings were located in any country, cultural context, or geographical location. SEARCH STRATEGY: A three-step search strategy was used to identify relevant published and unpublished studies. English papers from 1981 onwards were considered. The following databases were searched: Anthrosource, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Social Services Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts. In addition to the databases, several grey literature sources were searched. METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY: Papers that were selected for retrieval were independently assessed for inclusion in the review by two JBI-trained reviewers. The two reviewers used a standardized critical appraisal instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument. DATA EXTRACTION: Qualitative data were extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Once qualitative studies were assessed using the the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument critical appraisal tool, findings of the included studies were extracted. These findings were aggregated into categories according to their similarity in meaning. These categories were then subjected to a meta-synthesis to produce a comprehensive set of synthesized findings. RESULTS: Five studies were included in the review. Thirty-eight findings were extracted from the included studies and were aggregated into five categories. The five categories were synthesized into two synthesized findings. The two synthesized findings were:Synthesized finding1: Negative experiences of collaboration between nurses and midwives may be influenced by distrust, lack of clear roles, or unprofessional or inconsiderate behavior.Synthesized finding 2: If midwives and nurses have positive experiences collaborating thenthere is hope that the challenges of collaboration can be overcome. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative evidence about the experiences of midwives and nurses collaborating to provide birthing care was identified, appraised and synthesized. Two synthesized findings were created from the findings of the five included studies. Midwives and nurses had negative experiences of collaboration which may be influenced by: distrust, unclear roles, or a lack of professionalism or consideration. Midwives and nurses had positive experiences of teamwork which can be a source of hope for overcoming the challenges of sharing care.There is clearly a gap in the literature about the collaborative experiences of midwives and nurses, given that only five studies were located for inclusion in the systematic review. More qualitative research exploring collaboration as a process and the interactional dynamics of midwives and nurses in a variety of practice and professional contexts is required.Distrust, unclear roles, and lack of professionalism and consideration must all be addressed. Strategies that address and minimize the occurrences of these three elements need to be developed and implemented in an effort to reduce negative collaborative experiences for midwives and nurses. Postive experiences of teamwork must be acknowleged and celebrated, and the challenges that sharing care present must be understood as a part of the collaborative process.More qualitative research is required to explore the collaborative process between midwives and nurses. Further exploration of their interactional dynamics, their relationship between power and collaboration, and the experiences of collaboration in a variety of professional and practice contexts is recommended.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,082

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,069
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,005
Bibliométrie0,0100,012
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0040,004
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,111
Tête enseignante GPT0,486
Écart entre enseignants0,375 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations27
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsMême sujetMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsTravaux en français237 207