Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties Using COSMIN.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding self-efficacy has been proven to play a predictive role in enhancing breastfeeding initiation and continuation. Breastfeeding self-efficacy measurement tools have facilitated healthcare professionals' early identification and support of women at higher risk of early discontinuation of breastfeeding. RESEARCH AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of breastfeeding self-efficacy measurement tools. METHOD: A systematic review was carried out in three phases. Phase One comprised a systematic literature review performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from February 2021 to January 2023, including 36 studies for final analysis. Phase Two provided a quality appraisal of the psychometric properties of each of the seven breastfeeding self-efficacy measurement tools, according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instrument checklist (COSMIN) guidelines. Phase Three summarized and graded the overall quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) modified approach. RESULT: The included articles comprised 9,225 participants and seven breastfeeding self-efficacy measurement tools. The Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale, Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale - Short Form (BSES-SF), and Prenatal Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy Scale were supported by Grade A evidence sustaining their validity and reliability to assess breastfeeding self-efficacy in the continuum of maternity care. The BSES-SF is the most feasible tool in clinical practice and the most utilized internationally, available in 15 languages. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provided a Grade A recommendation on breastfeeding measurement tools that will be helpful both for clinical and research purposes.Registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021238450).

Targeted health and social care interventions for women and infants who are disproportionately impacted by health inequalities in high-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Disadvantaged populations (such as women from minority ethnic groups and those with social complexity) are at an increased risk of poor outcomes and experiences. Inequalities in health outcomes include preterm birth, maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, and poor-quality care. The impact of interventions is unclear for this population, in high-income countries (HIC). The review aimed to identify and evaluate the current evidence related to targeted health and social care service interventions in HICs which can improve health inequalities experienced by childbearing women and infants at disproportionate risk of poor outcomes and experiences. METHODS: Twelve databases searched for studies across all HICs, from any methodological design. The search concluded on 8/11/22. The inclusion criteria included interventions that targeted disadvantaged populations which provided a component of clinical care that differed from standard maternity care. RESULTS: Forty six index studies were included. Countries included Australia, Canada, Chile, Hong Kong, UK and USA. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, and results showed three intervention types: midwifery models of care, interdisciplinary care, and community-centred services. These intervention types have been delivered singularly but also in combination of each other demonstrating overlapping features. Overall, results show interventions had positive associations with primary (maternal, perinatal, and infant mortality) and secondary outcomes (experiences and satisfaction, antenatal care coverage, access to care, quality of care, mode of delivery, analgesia use in labour, preterm birth, low birth weight, breastfeeding, family planning, immunisations) however significance and impact vary. Midwifery models of care took an interpersonal and holistic approach as they focused on continuity of carer, home visiting, culturally and linguistically appropriate care and accessibility. Interdisciplinary care took a structural approach, to coordinate care for women requiring multi-agency health and social services. Community-centred services took a place-based approach with interventions that suited the need of its community and their norms. CONCLUSION: Targeted interventions exist in HICs, but these vary according to the context and infrastructure of standard maternity care. Multi-interventional approaches could enhance a targeted approach for at risk populations, in particular combining midwifery models of care with community-centred approaches, to enhance accessibility, earlier engagement, and increased attendance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020218357.

Developmental Strategy and Validation of the Midwifery Interventions Classification (MIC): A Delphi Study Protocol and Results from the Developmental Phase.

This study protocol aims to describe the rationale and developmental strategy of the first study in the Italian context which aimed to define a Midwifery Interventions Classification, an evidence-based, standardized taxonomy and classification of midwifery interventions. Midwifery interventions require a specific definition, developed through a consensus-building process by stakeholders to develop the Italian taxonomy of the Midwifery Interventions Classification with the potential for international transferability, implementation, and scaling up. A multi-round Delphi study was designed between June and September 2022, and data collection is planned between February 2023 and February 2024. The developmental phase of the study is based on a literature review to select meaningful midwifery interventions from the international literature, aiming to identify an evidence-based list of midwifery interventions. This phase led to including 16 articles derived from a systematic search performed on PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus; 164 midwifery interventions were selected from the data extraction performed on the 16 included articles. Healthcare professionals, researchers, and service users will be eligible panelists for the Delphi surveys. The protocol designed a dynamic number of consultation rounds based on the ratings and interim analysis. A nine-point Likert scoring system is designed to evaluate midwifery interventions. Attrition and attrition bias will be evaluated. The results from the study designed in this protocol will inform the development of the Italian taxonomy of the Midwifery Interventions Classification. A shared classification of midwifery interventions will support audit and quality improvement, education, and comparable data collections for research, sustaining public recognition of midwifery interventions to promote optimal maternal and newborn health.

Maternity service reconfigurations for intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing shortages: modelling of low-risk births in England.

INTRODUCTION: Choice of birth setting is important and it is valuable to know how reconfiguring available settings may affect midwifery staffing needs. COVID-19-related health system pressures have meant restriction of community births. We aimed to model the potential of service reconfigurations to offset midwifery staffing shortages. METHODS: We adapted the Birthrate Plus method to develop a tool that models the effects on intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing requirements of changing service configurations for low-risk births. We tested our tool on two hypothetical model trusts with different baseline configurations of hospital and community low-risk birth services, representing those most common in England, and applied it to scenarios with midwifery staffing shortages of 15%, 25% and 35%. In scenarios with midwifery staffing shortages above 15%, we modelled restricting community births in line with professional guidance on COVID-19 service reconfiguration. For shortages of 15%, we modelled expanding community births per the target of the Maternity Transformation programme. RESULTS: Expanding community births with 15% shortages required 0.0 and 0.1 whole-time equivalent more midwives in our respective trusts compared with baseline, representing 0% and 0.1% of overall staffing requirements net of shortages. Restricting home births with 25% shortages reduced midwifery staffing need by 0.1 midwives (-0.1% of staffing) and 0.3 midwives (-0.3%). Suspending community births with 35% shortages meant changes of -0.3 midwives (-0.3%) and -0.5 midwives (-0.5%) in the two trusts. Sensitivity analysis showed that our results were robust even under extreme assumptions. CONCLUSION: Our model found that reconfiguring maternity services in response to shortages has a negligible effect on intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing needs. Given this, with lower degrees of shortage, managers can consider increasing community birth options where there is demand. In situations of severe shortage, reconfiguration cannot recoup the shortage and managers must decide how to modify service arrangements.

The Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool, a device for reducing the clinical impact of placental dysfunction and preterm birth: protocol for a mixed-methods early implementation evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in stillbirth and preterm birth persist even after correction for ethnicity and social deprivation, demonstrating that there is wide geographical variation in the quality of care. To address this inequity, Tommy's National Centre for Maternity Improvement developed the Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool, which aims to support the provision of "the right care at the right time", personalising risk assessment and care according to best evidence. This web-based clinical decision tool assesses the risk of preterm birth and placental dysfunction more accurately than current methods, and recommends best evidenced-based care pathways in a format accessible to both women and healthcare professionals. It also provides links to reliable sources of pregnancy information for women. The aim of this study is to evaluate implementation of Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool in four early-adopter UK maternity services, to inform wider scale-up. METHODS: The Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool has been developed involving maternity service users and healthcare professionals in partnership. This mixed-methods study will evaluate: maternity service user and provider acceptability and experience; barriers and facilitators to implementation; reach (whether particular groups are excluded and why), fidelity (degree to which the intervention is delivered as intended), and unintended consequences. Data will be gathered over 25 months through interviews, focus groups, questionnaires and through the Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool itself. The NASSS framework (Non-adoption or Abandonment of technology by individuals and difficulties achieving Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability) will inform data analysis. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the intervention, Tommy's Clinical Decision Tool, according to TiDIER guidelines, and the protocol for the early adopter implementation evaluation study. Findings will inform future scale up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry no. 13498237 , on 31st January 2022.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on midwifery-led service provision in the United Kingdom in 2020-21: Findings of three national surveys.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required all healthcare systems to adapt quickly. There is some evidence about the impact of the pandemic on United Kingdom maternity services overall, but little is known about the impact on midwifery-led services, including midwifery units and home birth services. OBJECTIVE: To describe changes to midwifery-led service provision in the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Three national surveys were circulated using the United Kingdom Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS) and the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) Heads and Directors of Midwifery Network. The UKMidSS surveys took place in wave 1 (April to June 2020) and in wave 2 (February to March 2021). The RCM survey was conducted in April 2020. FINDINGS: The response rate to the UKMidSS surveys was 84% in wave 1 and 70% in wave 2, while 48% of Heads and Directors of Midwifery responded to the RCM survey. Around 60% of midwifery units reported being open as usual in wave 1, with the remainder affected by closures. Fewer unit closures (15%) were reported in the wave 2 survey. Around 40% of services reported some reduction in home birth services in wave 1, compared with 15% in wave 2. The apparent impact of the pandemic varied widely across the four nations of the United Kingdom and within the English regions. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic led to increased centralisation of maternity care and the disruption of midwifery-led services, especially in the first wave. Further research should focus on the reasons behind closures, the regional variation and the impact on maternity care experience and outcomes.

The Italian midwifery core outcome set (M-COS) for healthy childbearing women and newborns: Development and initial validation study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and validate a midwifery core outcome set (M-COS) for Italian settings based on a salutogenic framework of maternity care. DESIGN: A multi-phase and multi-method study was performed. In phase one, we conducted a literature review to identify a preliminary set of outcomes sensitive to midwifery care. In phase two, the qualitative and quantitative content validity of the M-COS was tested. Finally, in the third phase, construct validity was explored through a cross-sectional study to assess the psychometric properties of the M-COS through exploratory and confirmative factor analysis. This study was conducted from December 2019 to April 2020 in Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Three main groups of experts/midwives were involved. Group One (n = 10) was involved in the content validity phase, while the other two groups (Group Two and Group Three) were involved in the construct validity phase (n = 300). RESULTS: The M-COS includes six outcome domains and thirty-one core outcomes perceived as sensitive to midwifery care, namely: mortality and morbidity (n = 6 outcomes), childbirth (n = 3), postnatal period (n = 6), maternal health (n = 11), maternal-infant bonding (n = 3), and maternal self-care (n = 2). All domains showed good evidence of internal consistency. CONCLUSION: The Italian M-COS is a novel tool that will facilitate the consistent measurement of core outcomes sensitive to midwifery care from the antenatal to the postnatal period in Italian settings. This initial work will be followed by further studies, including validation by service users. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of the M-COS in clinical practice would facilitate evidence-based data collection and thus contribute to promoting high-quality maternity care.

Experiences of maternity care among women at increased risk of preterm birth receiving midwifery continuity of care compared to women receiving standard care: Results from the POPPIE pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Midwifery continuity of care models for women at low and mixed risk of complications have been shown to improve women's experiences of care. However, there is limited research on care experiences among women at increased risk of preterm birth. We aimed to explore the experiences of care among women with risk factors for preterm birth participating in a pilot trial (POPPIE) of a midwifery continuity of care model which included a specialist obstetric clinic. METHODS: A total of 334 pregnant women identified at increased risk of preterm birth were randomly allocated to either midwifery continuity of care (POPPIE group) or standard maternity care. Women in both groups were followed up at six-to-eight weeks postpartum and were invited to complete a postnatal survey either online or by post. An equal status exploratory sequential mixed method design was chosen to collect and analyse the quantitative postnatal survey data and qualitative interviews data. The postnatal survey included measures of social support, trust, perceptions of safety, quality of care, control during childbirth, bonding and quality of life. Categorical data were analysed with chi-squared tests and continuous data were analysed with t-tests and/or Mann-Whitney U test to measure differences in measures scores among groups. The qualitative interview data were subjected to a thematic framework analysis. Data triangulation brought quantitative and qualitative data together at the interpretation stage. FINDINGS: A total of 166 women completed the survey and 30 women were interviewed (90 and 16 in POPPIE group; 76 and 14 in standard group). We found survey respondents in the POPPIE group, compared to respondents in the standard group, were significantly more likely to report greater trust in midwives (Mann-Whitney U, p<0.0001), greater perceptions of safety during the antenatal care (t-test, p = 0.0138), have a particular midwife to contact when they needed during their pregnancy (t-test, p<0.0001) and the postnatal period (chi-squared, p<0.0001). They reported increased involvement in decisions regarding antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care (t-test, p = 0.002; p = 0.008; p = 0.006 respectively); and greater postnatal support and advice about: feeding the baby (chi-squared, p<0.0001), handling, settling and looking after the baby (chi-squared, p<0.0001), baby's health and progress (chi-squared, p = 0.039), their own health and recovery (chi-squared, p = 0.006) and who to contact about any emotional changes (chi-squared, p = 0.005). There were no significant differences between groups in the reporting of perceptions of safety during birth and the postnatal period, concerns raised during labour and birth taken seriously, being left alone during childbirth at a time of worries, control during labour, bonding, social support, and physical and mental health related quality of life after birth. Results from qualitative interviews provided insight and depth into many of these findings, with women in the POPPIE group reporting more positive experiences of bonding towards their babies and more positive physical health postnatally. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard maternity care, women at increased risk of PTB who received midwifery continuity of care were more likely to report increased perceptions of trust, safety and quality of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN (Number: 37733900); UK CRN (ID: 31951).