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: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: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:BackgroundGroup antenatal care (G-ANC) is a promising model for improving quality of maternal care and outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) but little has been published examining the mechanisms by which it may contribute to those improvements. Substantial interplay can be expected between pregnant women and providers' respective experiences of care, but most studies report findings separately. This study explores the experience and effects of G-ANC on both women and providers to inform an integrated theory of change for G-ANC in LMICs.MethodsThis paper reports on multiple secondary outcomes from a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial of group antenatal care in Kenya and Nigeria conducted from October 2016-November 2018 including 20 clusters per country. We collected qualitative data from providers and women providing or receiving group antenatal care via focus group discussions (19 with women; 4 with providers) and semi-structured interviews (42 with women; 4 with providers). Quantitative data were collected via surveys administered to 1) providers in the intervention arm at enrollment and after facilitating 4 cohorts and 2) women in both study arms at enrollment; 3-6 weeks postpartum; and 1 year postpartum. Through an iterative approach with framework analysis, we explored the interactions of voiced experience and perceived effects of care and placed them relationally within a theory of change. Selected variables from baseline and final surveys were analyzed to examine applicability of the theory to all study participants.ResultsFindings support seven inter-related themes. Three themes relate to the shared experience of care of women and providers: forming supportive relationships and open communication; becoming empowered partners in learning and care; and providing and receiving meaningful clinical services and information. Four themes relate to effects of that experience, which are not universally shared: self-reinforcing cycles of more and better care; linked improvements in health knowledge, confidence, and healthy behaviors; improved communication, support, and care beyond G-ANC meetings; and motivation to continue providing G-ANC. Together these themes map to a theory of change which centers the shared experience of care for women and providers among multiple pathways to improved outcomes.DiscussionThe reported experience and effects of G-ANC on women and providers are consistent with other studies in LMICs. This study is novel because it uses the themes to present a theory of change for G-ANC in low-resource settings. It is useful for G-ANC implementation to inform model development, test adaptations, and continue exploring mechanisms of action in future research.

Project description:BackgroundeHealth literacy is a key concept in the implementation of eHealth resources. However, most eHealth literacy definitions and frameworks are designed from the perceptive of the individual receiving eHealth care, which do not include health care providers' eHealth literacy or acceptance of delivering eHealth resources.AimsTo identify existing research on eHealth literacy domains and measurements and identify eHealth literacy scores and associated factors among hospital health care providers.MethodsThis systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, PEDro, AMED and Web of Science. Quantitative studies assessing eHealth literacy with original research, targeting hospital health care providers were included. Three eHealth literacy domains based on the eHealth literacy framework were defined a priori; (1) Individual eHealth literacy, (2) Interaction with the eHealth system, and (3) Access to the system. Pairs of authors independently assessed eligibility, appraised methodological quality and extracted data.ResultsFourteen publications, of which twelve publications were conducted in non-Western countries, were included. In total, 3,666 health care providers within eleven different professions were included, with nurses being the largest group. Nine of the included studies used the eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) to measure eHealth literacy, representing the domain of individual eHealth literacy. A minority of the studies covered domains such as interaction with the eHealth system and access to the system. The mean eHEALS score in the studies ranged from 27.8 to 31.7 (8-40), indicating a higher eHealth literacy. One study reported desirable eHealth literacy based on the Digital Health Literacy Instrument. Another study reported a relatively high score on the Staff eHealth literacy questionnaire. eHealth literacy was associated with socio-demographic factors, experience of technology, health behaviour and work-related factors.ConclusionsHealth care providers have good individual eHealth literacy. However, more research is needed on the eHealth literacy domains dependent on interaction with the eHealth system and access to the system. Furthermore, most studies were conducted in Eastern and Central-Africa, and more research is thus needed in a Western context.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022363039).

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: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: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.