Postpartum care for parent-infant dyads: A community midwifery model.

INTRODUCTION: Postpartum health is in crisis in the United States, with rising pregnancy-related mortality and worsening racial inequities. The World Health Organization recommends four postpartum visits during the 6 weeks after childbirth, yet standard postpartum care in the United States is generally one visit 6 weeks after birth. We present community midwifery postpartum care in the United States as a model concordant with World Health Organization guidelines, describing this model of care and its potential to improve postpartum health for birthing people and babies. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 34 community midwives providing care in birth centers and home settings in Oregon and California. A multidisciplinary team analyzed data using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants were Certified Professional Midwives; 10 were certified nurse-midwives. A total of 14 midwives identified as people of color. Most spoke multiple languages. We describe six key elements of the community midwifery model of postpartum care: (1) multiple visits, including home visits; typically five to eight over six weeks postpartum; (2) care for the parent-infant dyad; (3) continuity of personalized care; (4) relationship-centered care; (5) planning and preparation for postpartum; and (6) focus on postpartum rest. CONCLUSION: The community midwifery model of postpartum care is a guideline-concordant approach to caring for the parent-infant dyad and may address rising pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality in the United States.

Determinants of implementation for group medical visits for patients with chronic pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the critical need for comprehensive and effective chronic pain care, delivery of such care remains challenging. Group medical visits (GMVs) offer an innovative and efficient model for providing comprehensive care for patients with chronic pain. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify barriers and facilitators (determinants) to implementing GMVs for adult patients with chronic pain. METHODS: The review included peer-reviewed studies reporting findings on implementation of GMVs for chronic pain, inclusive of all study designs. Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched. Studies of individual appointments or group therapy were excluded. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to determine risk of bias. Data related to implementation determinants were extracted independently by two reviewers. Data synthesis was guided by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles reporting on 25 studies met criteria for inclusion and included qualitative observational (n = 8), randomized controlled trial (n = 6), quantitative non-randomized (n = 9), quantitative descriptive (n = 3), and mixed methods designs (n = 7). The studies included in this review included a total of 2364 participants. Quality ratings were mixed, with qualitative articles receiving the highest quality ratings. Common multi-level determinants included the relative advantage of GMVs for chronic pain over other available models, the capability and motivation of clinicians, the cost of GMVs to patients and the health system, the need and opportunity of patients, the availability of resources and relational connections supporting recruitment and referral to GMVs within the clinic setting, and financing and policies within the outer setting. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-level factors determine the implementation of GMVs for chronic pain. Future research is needed to investigate these determinants more thoroughly and to develop and test implementation strategies addressing these determinants to promote the scale-up of GMVs for patients with chronic pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021231310 .

Mindfulness-Based Group Medical Visits: Strategies to Improve Equitable Access and Inclusion for Diverse Patients in Cancer Treatment.

Background: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are supported by clinical practice guidelines as effective non-pharmacologic interventions for common symptoms experienced by cancer patients, including anxiety, depression, and fatigue. However, the evidence predominately derives from White breast cancer survivors. Racial and ethnic minority patients have less access to integrative oncology care and worse cancer outcomes. To address these gaps, we designed and piloted a series of mindfulness-based group medical visits (MB-GMVs), embedded into comprehensive cancer care, for racially and ethnically diverse patients in cancer treatment. Methods: As a quality improvement project, we launched a telehealth MB-GMV series for patients undergoing cancer treatment, delivered as four weekly 2-hour visits billable to insurance. Content was concordant with evidence-based guidelines and established MBIs and adapted to improve cultural relevance and fit (eg, access-centered, trauma-informed, with inclusive communication practices). Program structure was adapted to address barriers to participation, with ≥50% slots per series reserved for racial and ethnic minority patients. Intake surveys incorporated a demographic questionnaire and symptom assessments. Evaluations were sent following the visits. Results: In our first ten cohorts (n = 78), 80% of referred patients enrolled. Participants were: 22% Asian, 14% Black, 17% Latino, 45% non-Latino White; 65% female; with a median age of 54 years (range 27-79); and 80% had metastatic cancer. Common baseline symptoms included lack of energy, difficulty sleeping, and worrying. Most patients (90%) attended ≥3 visits. On final evaluations, 87% patients rated the series as "excellent"; 81% "strongly agreed" that they liked the GMV format; and 92% would "definitely" recommend the series to others. Qualitative themes included empowerment and connectedness. Conclusion: Telehealth GMVs are a feasible, acceptable, and financially sustainable model for increasing access to MBIs. Diverse patients in active cancer treatment were able to participate and reported high levels of satisfaction with this series that was tailored to center health equity and inclusion.