Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Midwife‐led versus other models of care for childbearing women

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 08 octubre 2008see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Embarazo y parto

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Marie Hatem

    Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada

  • Jane Sandall

    Correspondencia a: Health and Social Care Research Division, King's College, London, UK

    [email protected]

  • Declan Devane

    School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

  • Hora Soltani

    Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

  • Simon Gates

    Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Contributions of authors

Declan Devane (DD)

DD contributed to the protocol by contributing to the design and writing.

DD contributed to the review by contributing to the design of the review, appraising the quality of and extracting data from selected papers, contributing to the interpretation of data, writing the review and providing a methodological and clinical perspective.

Simon Gates (SG)
SG provided methodological and statistical expertise in the development of the review, and assisted with analysis of data and interpretation of results.

Marie Hatem (MH)
MH registered the title and took the lead in the development of the protocol as the contact author. MH wrote the first version of the protocol, received all comments and suggestions from co‐authors and referees and revised the protocol for publication.

MH is joint first author of the review. She was the contact author between 2004 and 2006. She received the list of the eligible papers from the Group. She organised the retrieval of the papers from different libraries (e.g. university; hospital, research centre) and contacted a few authors of papers that could not be found. She screened retrieved papers against the inclusion criteria, ensured that all authors had access to all of the listed papers (e.g. sent them copies of the papers) and shared these papers among the authors for checking of quality assessment. She prepared an electronic checklist for the appraisal of the quality of papers and for the extraction of the data. She did the initial appraisal of the quality of all the listed papers and the extraction of the data. She wrote to authors of papers for additional information. She entered the details of the studies for inclusion and exclusion into Review Manager. She wrote the draft of the description of the characteristics of the included papers. She entered the data into Review Manager and did the data management, adapting the comparisons, the subgroups, the outcomes, the analysis, etc., in response to discussions among all authors. She wrote the first draft of the Results and Discussion sections as well as the Plain Language Summary and the Abstract.

Jane Sandall
JS contributed to the protocol by contributing to the design and writing. JS contributed to the design, screened retrieved papers against inclusion criteria and appraised quality of papers.

JS has been the contact author for the review since July 2006 and is joint first author of the review. Since 2006, she has co‐ordinated the review process, written to authors for additional information, managed data for the review, re‐extracted data from papers, re‐entered data into Review Manager, re‐entered data for the included studies section, analysed and interpreted data, and provided a clinical and policy perspective. She has rewritten the Plain Language Summary, Abstract, Background, Methods, Description of studies, Methodological quality, Results, Analysis, Discussion and wrote the final draft of the review.

JS revised the review in response to feedback from referees and the editor. When making the revisions, JS updated the search and identified four new reports, and contacted authors for additional data, which were assessed by JS and DD, and which she included in the revised version.

JS in the guarantor for the review.

Hora Soltani (HS)
HS contributed to the design and commented on the first draft of the protocol.

HS contributed to the development of the review by contributing to the design of the review, evaluation of the quality of the articles against the inclusion/exclusion criteria, data extraction, writing to authors for clarification of original article information, data interpretation, commenting on as well as writing the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • King's College, London, UK.

  • Research Centre ‐ Ste‐Justine's Hospital, Montreal, Canada.

  • Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Derby, UK.

  • Health Services Executive, Dublin North East, Ireland.

  • Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

Declan Devane is currently conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare midwife‐led care in a midwife‐led unit with consultant‐led care for women who are 'low risk' at antenatal booking (Begley 2007). Jane Sandall was and is principal investigator for two studies evaluating models of midwife‐led care (Sandall 2001) (One to One Caseload Programme http://www.kcl.ac.uk/projects/1to1caseload ), and co‐investigator on the 'Birthplace in England Research Programme', an integrated programme of research designed to compare outcomes of births for women planned at home, in different types of midwifery units, and in hospital units with obstetric services http://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/birthplace.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the investigators who provided additional information: C Homer, H McLachlan and P Brodie. We are also grateful to Ulli Huber for initial data extraction and to Ellen Hodnett, who was involved in the early stages of the review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2024 Apr 10

Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women

Review

Jane Sandall, Cristina Fernandez Turienzo, Declan Devane, Hora Soltani, Paddy Gillespie, Simon Gates, Leanne V Jones, Andrew H Shennan, Hannah Rayment-Jones

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub6

2016 Apr 28

Midwife‐led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women

Review

Jane Sandall, Hora Soltani, Simon Gates, Andrew Shennan, Declan Devane

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5

2015 Sep 15

Midwife‐led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women

Review

Jane Sandall, Hora Soltani, Simon Gates, Andrew Shennan, Declan Devane

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub4

2013 Aug 21

Midwife‐led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women

Review

Jane Sandall, Hora Soltani, Simon Gates, Andrew Shennan, Declan Devane

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub3

2008 Oct 08

Midwife‐led versus other models of care for childbearing women

Review

Marie Hatem, Jane Sandall, Declan Devane, Hora Soltani, Simon Gates

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub2

2004 Jan 26

Midwifery‐led versus other models of care delivery for childbearing women

Protocol

Marie Hatem, Ellen D Hodnett, Declan Devane, William D Fraser, Jane Sandall, Hora Soltani

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667

Notes

The review will be updated in 2010 when the findings of current trials in progress are published. The review team will be expanded to include an obstetrician.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.