Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Factors that influence the provision of good‐quality routine antenatal services: a qualitative evidence synthesis of the views and experiences of maternity care providers

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012752Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 25 agosto 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Qualitative
Etapa:
  1. Protocol
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Práctica y organización sanitaria efectivas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 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

  • Soo Downe

    Correspondencia a: Research in Childbirth and Health (ReaCH) unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

    [email protected]

  • Kenneth Finlayson

    Research in Childbirth and Health (ReaCH) unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

  • Özge Tunçalp

    UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • A Metin Gülmezoglu

    UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Contributions of authors

OT conceived of and commissioned the study. SD and KF drafted the protocol with revisions from OT. All authors read, amended and approved the manuscript.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), UK.

    Infrastructure Funding

  • World Health Organization (WHO), Switzerland.

    Infrastructure Support

External sources

  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, USA.

    Grant number OPP1084319

Declarations of interest

All authors have contributed to the review of the WHO ANC guidelines (2015‐2016): Soo Downe and Kenny Finlayson were funded to undertake related reviews for the guideline team.

Acknowledgements

Claire Glenton and Simon Lewin of the Oslo satellite of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group provided guidance in developing the protocol.

The peer referees, Andrew Booth, Meghan Bohren and Brian McKinstry, provided valuable input to improve the protocol.

The Norwegian Satellite of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group receives funding from the Norwegian Agency for Development Co‐operation (Norad), via the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, to support review authors in the production of their reviews.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2017 Dec 04

Factors that influence the provision of good‐quality routine antenatal services: a qualitative evidence synthesis of the views and experiences of maternity care providers

Protocol

Soo Downe, Kenneth Finlayson, Özge Tunçalp, A Metin Gülmezoglu

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012752.pub2

2017 Aug 25

Factors that influence the provision of good‐quality routine antenatal services: a qualitative evidence synthesis of the views and experiences of maternity care providers

Protocol

Soo Downe, Kenneth Finlayson, Özge Tunçalp, A Metin Gülmezoglu

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012752

Theory of Reasoned Action
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Theory of Reasoned Action

Table 1. Qualitative and quantitative reviews related to the uptake and delivery of ANC

Review

Title

Focus

Methodology

What the current review adds

Dowswell 2015

Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low‐risk pregnancy

Effectiveness of reduced schedule of ANC visits (FANC)

Quantitative (Cochrane Review)

Data that might explain why reduced visit schedules work/don't work for some women/groups

Catling 2015

Group versus conventional antenatal care for women

Effectiveness of different approaches to ANC

Quantitative (Cochrane Review)

Data that might explain why reduced visit schedules work/don't work for some women/groups

Downe 2009

Why marginalised women don't use ANC (HIC)

Exploration of women's views and experiences of non‐use of ANC in HICs

Qualitative metasynthesis

A wider scope, as the proposed review includes all women from all settings and includes facilitators as well as barriers

Finlayson 2013

Why women don't use ANC (LMICs)

Exploration of women's views and experiences of non‐use or limited use of ANC in LMICs

Qualitative metasynthesis

A wider scope, as the proposed review includes all women from all settings and includes facilitators as well as barriers

Phillippi 2009

Women's perceptions of access to prenatal care in the USA

Exploration of women's views and experiences of access to ANC in the USA

Qualitative metasynthesis

A wider scope, as the proposed review includes all women from all settings

Downe 2015

What matters to women

Exploration of what pregnant women might want and need to support them through pregnancy

Qualitative metasynthesis

This review excluded women who were reporting on their actual experience of ANC. The proposed review will include these accounts.

Munabi‐Babigumira 2015

Factors that influence the provision of intrapartum and postnatal care by skilled birth attendants in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Exploration of the attitudes, views, experiences and behaviours of skilled birth attendants and those who support them, to identify factors that influence the delivery of intrapartum and postnatal care in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Qualitative evidence synthesis

Data that might identify the barriers and facilitators associated with the delivery of intrapartum and postpartum care from the perspective of healthcare providers

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Qualitative and quantitative reviews related to the uptake and delivery of ANC