Dataset Information

A systematic review of providers' experiences of facilitating group antenatal care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Group antenatal care is a rapidly expanding alternative antenatal care delivery model. Research has shown it to be a safe and effective care model for women, but less is known about the perspectives of the providers leading this care. This systematic review examined published literature that considered health care professionals' experiences of facilitating group antenatal care.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in seven databases (Cinahl, Medline, Psychinfo, Embase, Ovid Emcare, Global Health and MIDRS) in April 2020. Qualitative or mixed methods studies with a significant qualitative component were eligible for inclusion if they included a focus on the experiences of health care providers who had facilitated group antenatal care. Prisma screening guidelines were followed and study quality was critically appraised by three independent reviewers. The findings were synthesised thematically.

Results

Nineteen papers from nine countries were included. Three main themes emerged within provider experiences of group antenatal care. The first theme, 'Giving women the care providers feel they want and need', addresses richer use of time, more personal care, more support, and continuity of care. The second theme, 'Building skills and relationships', highlights autonomy, role development and hierarchy dissolution. The final theme, 'Value proposition of group antenatal care', discusses provider investment and workload.

Conclusions

Health care providers' experience of delivering group antenatal care was positive overall. Opportunities to deliver high-quality care that benefits women and allows providers to develop their professional role were appreciated. Questions about the providers' perspectives on workload, task shifting, and the structural changes needed to support the sustainability of group antenatal care warrant further exploration.

SUBMITTER: Lazar J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8425020 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Preterm Birth Initiative-Rwanda is conducting a 36-cluster randomized controlled trial of group antenatal and postnatal care. In the context of this trial, we collected qualitative data before and after implementation. The purpose was two-fold. First, to inform the design of the group care program before implementation and second, to document women's experiences of group care at the mid-point of the trial to make ongoing programmatic adjustments and improvements. METHODS:We completed 8 focus group discussions among women of reproductive age before group care implementation and 6 focus group discussions among women who participated in group antenatal care and/or postnatal care at 18 health centers that introduced the model, approximately 9?months after implementation. RESULTS:Before implementation, focus group participants reported both enthusiasm for the potential for support and insight from a group of peers and concern about the risk of sharing private information with peers who may judge, mock, or gossip. After implementation, group care participants reported benefits including increased knowledge, peer support, and more satisfying relationships with providers. When asked about barriers to group care participation, none of them cited concern about privacy but instead cited lack of financial resources, lack of cooperation from a male partner, and long distances to the health center. Finally, women stated that the group care experience would be improved if all participants and providers arrived on time and remained focused on the group care visit throughout. DISCUSSION:These results are consistent with other published reports of women's perceptions of group antenatal care, especially increased pregnancy- and parenting-related knowledge, peer support, and improved relationships with health care providers. Some results were unexpected, especially the consequences of staff allocation patterns that resulted in providers arriving late for group visits or having to leave during group visits to attend to other facility services, which diminished women's experiences of care. CONCLUSION:Group antenatal and postnatal care provide compelling benefits to women and families. If the model requires the addition of human resources at the health center, intensive reminder communications, and large-scale community outreach to benefit the largest number of pregnant and postnatal mothers, those additional resources required must be factored into any future decision to scale a group care model. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03154177 .

Project description:IntroductionIt is critical to increase the uptake of interventions proven to be effective to improve maternal and perinatal outcomes. Supply kits have been suggested to be a feasible strategy designed to ensure timely availability and effective follow-up of care.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on the uptake, effectiveness and safety of supply kits for maternal care.Search strategyMEDLINE, the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, Campbell Collaboration, Lilacs, Embase and unpublished studies were searched.Selection criteriaStudies that reported the efficacy, safety and use of supply kits for maternal healthcare were eligible. Participants were pregnant women or in childbirth. Supply kits were defined as a collection of medicines, supplies or instruments packaged together with the aim of conducting a healthcare task.Data collection and analysisTwo reviewers independently performed the screening, data extraction, and methodological and quality assessment.Main results24 studies were included: 4 of them were systematic reviews and 20 primary studies. Eighteen studies evaluated a so-called "clean delivery kit". In all but two studies, the kits were used by more than half of the participants. A meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate due to the heterogeneity in study design, in the components of the interventions implemented, in the content of the kits, and in outcomes. Nine studies assessed neonatal outcomes and found statistically significant reductions in cord infection, sepsis and tetanus-related mortality in the intervention group. Three studies showed evidence of reduced neonatal mortality (OR 0.52, 0.60 and 0.71) with statistically significant confidence intervals in all cases. Four studies reported odd ratios for maternal mortality, but only one showed evidence of a statistically significant decrease in this outcome but it was ascribed to hand washing prior to childbirth and not with the use of kits.ConclusionThis review suggests potential benefits in the use of supply kits to improve maternal and neonatal health. However, the observational nature of the studies, the heterogeneity and the use of kits incorporated within complex interventions limit the interpretation of the findings.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify the determinants of antenatal care (ANC) utilisation in sub-Saharan Africa. DESIGN:Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:Databases searched were PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Primary studies reporting on determinants of ANC utilisation following multivariate analysis, conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and published in English language between 2008 and 2018. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:A data extraction form was used to extract the following information: name of first author, year of publication, study location, study design, study subjects, sample size and determinants. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol was used to guide the screening and eligibility of the studies. The Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess the quality of the studies while the Andersen framework was used to report findings. RESULTS:74 studies that met the inclusion criteria were fully assessed. Most studies identified socioeconomic status, urban residence, older/increasing age, low parity, being educated and having an educated partner, being employed, being married and Christian religion as predictors of ANC attendance and timeliness. Awareness of danger signs, timing and adequate number of antenatal visits, exposure to mass media and good attitude towards ANC utilisation made attendance and initiation of ANC in first trimester more likely. Having an unplanned pregnancy, previous pregnancy complications, poor autonomy, lack of husband's support, increased distance to health facility, not having health insurance and high cost of services negatively impacted the overall uptake, timing and frequency of antenatal visits. CONCLUSION:A variety of predisposing, enabling and need factors affect ANC utilisation in sub-Saharan Africa. Intersectoral collaboration to promote female education and empowerment, improve geographical access and strengthened implementation of ANC policies with active community participation are recommended.

Project description:BackgroundAntenatal care is one of the key preventive health services used around the world. In most Western countries, antenatal care traditionally involves a schedule of one-to-one visits with a care provider. A different way of providing antenatal care involves use of a group model.Objectives1. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on psychosocial, physiological, labour and birth outcomes for women and their babies.2. To compare the effects of group antenatal care versus conventional antenatal care on care provider satisfaction.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), contacted experts in the field and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies.Selection criteriaAll identified published, unpublished and ongoing randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing group antenatal care with conventional antenatal care were included. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible, and one has been included. Cross-over trials were not eligible.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and extracted data; all review authors checked data for accuracy.Main resultsWe included four studies (2350 women). The overall risk of bias for the included studies was assessed as acceptable in two studies and good in two studies. No statistically significant differences were observed between women who received group antenatal care and those given standard individual antenatal care for the primary outcome of preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.00; three trials; N = 1888). The proportion of low-birthweight (less than 2500 g) babies was similar between groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.23; three trials; N = 1935). No group differences were noted for the primary outcomes small-for-gestational age (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24; two trials; N = 1473) and perinatal mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.25; three trials; N = 1943).Satisfaction was rated as high among women who were allocated to group antenatal care, but this outcome was measured in only one trial. In this trial, mean satisfaction with care in the group given antenatal care was almost five times greater than that reported by those allocated to standard care (mean difference 4.90, 95% CI 3.10 to 6.70; one study; N = 993). No differences in neonatal intensive care admission, initiation of breastfeeding or spontaneous vaginal birth were observed between groups. Several outcomes related to stress and depression were reported in one trial. No differences between groups were observed for any of these outcomes.No data were available on the effects of group antenatal care on care provider satisfaction.We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess evidence for seven prespecified outcomes; results ranged from low quality (perinatal mortality) to moderate quality (preterm birth, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding initiation) to high quality (satisfaction with antenatal care, spontaneous vaginal birth).Authors' conclusionsAvailable evidence suggests that group antenatal care is positively viewed by women and is associated with no adverse outcomes for them or for their babies. No differences in the rate of preterm birth were reported when women received group antenatal care. This review is limited because of the small numbers of studies and women, and because one study contributed 42% of the women. Most of the analyses are based on a single study. Additional research is required to determine whether group antenatal care is associated with significant benefit in terms of preterm birth or birthweight.

Project description:Antenatal care reduces maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity through the detection and treatment of some conditions, but its coverage is less than optimal within certain populations. Supply kits for maternal health were designed to overcome barriers present when providing care during pregnancy and childbirth particularly to women from underserved population.We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review on the use of supply kits. This manuscript presents the findings from qualitative studies that reported barriers, facilitators, and user's recommendation in the adoption and implementation of any type of kit designed to be used during pregnancy or childbirth.This review included eight studies, and seven were implemented in developing countries. Most studies assessed the implementation of clean delivery kits to be used during labour and delivery, and contributed to gain insights into factors that may hinder or foster the use of kits.Clean delivery kits were conceived to cope with barriers related mainly to access. The most important barrier identified were those related to the socio-cultural and the lack of knowledge dimension such as who held the decision-making authority in the household, as well as popular beliefs behind the idea that birth preparation could bring bad luck, may prevent clients from adhering to their use. In addition, financial constraints and limited understanding of the instructions of use were accessibility barriers found. On the other hand, once used, clean delivery kits for maternal health were accepted by women and health workers. Convenience, hygienic components, and avoidance of delays in receiving care were viewed as satisfactory features.Supply kits are mostly affordable and easily deployable. Increasing awareness among the population about the offered kits and providing information on their benefits emerges as a critical step to foster use in settings where kits are available. Implementation of this strategy requires low complexity resources and could make the use of kits an accepted alternative to increase the use of evidence-based interventions and thus improve quality of care during pregnancy, childbirth and neonatal period mainly at the community level in low income countries and remote areas with low access.

Project description:In high-income countries, group antenatal care (ANC) offers an alternative to individual care and is associated with improved attendance, client satisfaction, and health outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. In low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, this model could be adapted to address low antenatal care uptake and improve quality. However, evidence on key attributes of a group care model for low-resource settings remains scant. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on models of group antenatal care in LMICs to identify attributes that may increase the relevance, acceptability and effectiveness of group ANC in such settings. We systematically searched five databases and conducted hand and reference searches. We also conducted key informant interviews with researchers and program implementers who have introduced group antenatal care models in LMICs. Using a pre-defined evidence summary template, we extracted evidence on key attributes-like session content and frequency, and group composition and organization-of group care models introduced across LMIC settings. Our systematic literature review identified nine unique descriptions of group antenatal care models. We supplemented this information with evidence from 10 key informant interviews. We synthesized evidence from these 19 data sources to identify attributes of group care models for pregnant women that appeared consistently across all of them. We considered these components that are fundamental to the delivery of group antenatal care. We also identified attributes that need to be tailored to the context in which they are implemented to meet local standards for comprehensive ANC, for example, the number of sessions and the session content. We compiled these attributes to codify a composite "generic" model of group antenatal care for adaptation and implementation in LMIC settings. With this combination of standard and flexible components, group antenatal care, a service delivery alternative that has been successfully introduced and implemented in high-income country settings, can be adapted for improving provision and experiences of care for pregnant women in LMIC. Any conclusions about the benefits of this model for women, babies, and health systems in LMICs, however, must be based on robust evaluations of group antenatal care programs in those settings.

Project description:BackgroundGovernments and health care providers are keen to find innovative ways to deliver care more efficiently. Interest in electronic consultation (e-consultation) has grown, but the evidence of benefit is uncertain.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the evidence of delivering e-consultation using secure email and messaging or video links in primary care.MethodsA systematic review was conducted on the use and application of e-consultations in primary care. We searched 7 international databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, EconLit, and Web of Science; 1999-2017), identifying 52 relevant studies. Papers were screened against a detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Independent dual data extraction was conducted and assessed for quality. The resulting evidence was synthesized using thematic analysis.ResultsThis review included 57 studies from a range of countries, mainly the United States (n=30) and the United Kingdom (n=13). There were disparities in uptake and utilization toward more use by younger, employed adults. Patient responses to e-consultation were mixed. Patients reported satisfaction with services and improved self-care, communication, and engagement with clinicians. Evidence for the acceptability and ease of use was strong, especially for those with long-term conditions and patients located in remote regions. However, patients were concerned about the privacy and security of their data. For primary health care staff, e-consultation delivers challenges around time management, having the correct technological infrastructure, whether it offers a comparable standard of clinical quality, and whether it improves health outcomes.ConclusionsE-consultations may improve aspects of care delivery, but the small scale of many of the studies and low adoption rates leave unanswered questions about usage, quality, cost, and sustainability. We need to improve e-consultation implementation, demonstrate how e-consultations will not increase disparities in access, provide better reassurance to patients about privacy, and incorporate e-consultation as part of a manageable clinical workflow.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Antenatal care (ANC) provides a range of critical health services during pregnancy that can improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes. In Mozambique, only half of women receive four or more ANC visits, which are provided for free at public health centers by maternal and child health (MCH) nurses. Waiting time has been shown to contribute to negative client experiences, which may be a driver of low maternity care utilization. A recent pilot study of a program to schedule ANC visits demonstrated that scheduling care reduces waiting time and results in higher rates of complete ANC. This study aims to explore client experiences with waiting time for ANC in standard practice and care and after the introduction of appointment scheduling. METHODS:This study uses a series of qualitative interviews to unpack client experiences with ANC waiting time with and without scheduled care, in order to better understand the impact of waiting time on client experiences. Thirty-eight interviews were collected in May to June 2017 at three pilot study clinics in southern Mozambique, with a focus on two paired intervention and comparison facilities sharing similar facility characteristics. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis methods using NVivo software. RESULTS:Clients described strong motivations to seek ANC, pointing to the need to address convenience of care, and highlighted direct and indirect costs of seeking care that were exacerbated by long waiting times. Direct costs include time and transport costs of going to the clinic, while indirect costs include being unable to fulfill household and work obligations. Other barriers to complete ANC utilization of four or more visits include transport costs, negative provider experiences, and delayed ANC initiation, which limit the potential number of clinic contacts. CONCLUSIONS:Findings demonstrate that the scheduling intervention improves the client experience of seeking care by allowing women to both seek ANC and fulfill other productive obligations. Innovation in healthcare delivery should consider adapting models that minimize waiting times.