Exploring the use of digital technology to deliver healthcare services with explicit consideration of health inequalities in UK settings: A scoping review.

Objective: To map and explore existing evidence on the use of digital technology to deliver healthcare services with explicit consideration of health inequalities in UK settings. Methods: We searched six bibliographic databases, and the National Health Service (NHS) websites of each UK nation (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). Restrictions were applied on publication date (2013-2021) and publication language (English). Records were independently screened against eligibility criteria by pairs of reviewers from the team. Articles reporting relevant qualitative and/or quantitative research were included. Data were synthesised narratively. Results: Eleven articles, reporting data from nine interventions, were included. Articles reported findings from quantitative (n = 5), qualitative (n = 5), and mixed-methods (n = 1) studies. Study settings were mainly community based, with only one hospital based. Two interventions targeted service users, and seven interventions targeted healthcare providers. Two studies were explicitly and directly aimed at (and designed for) addressing health inequalities, with the remaining studies addressing them indirectly (e.g. study population can be classed as disadvantaged). Seven articles reported data on implementation outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility) and four articles reported data on effectiveness outcomes, with only one intervention demonstrating cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: It is not yet clear if digital health interventions/services in the UK work for those most at risk of health inequalities. The current evidence base is significantly underdeveloped, and research/intervention efforts have been largely driven by healthcare provider/system needs, rather than those of service users. Digital health interventions can help address health inequalities, but a range of barriers persist, alongside a potential for exacerbation of health inequalities.

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.

Development and early validation of questionnaires to assess system level factors affecting male partners' attendance at childbirth in LMICs.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that a woman who receives continuous labour support from a chosen companion can have shorter labour duration, is more likely to give birth without medical interventions, and report a satisfying childbirth experience. These outcomes result from the beneficial effects of emotional and practical support from the woman's chosen companion, and care provided by health providers. When a woman's chosen companion is her male partner, in addition to the above benefits, his presence can promote his bonding with the baby, and shared parenthood. However, there may be healthcare system barriers, including organisational, management and individual (staff) factors, that inhibit or restrict women's choice of companion. There are currently no suitable survey tools that can be used to assess the system level factors affecting the implementation of male partners' attendance at childbirth in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We designed two questionnaires to help to address that gap: the Male Partners' Attendance at Childbirth-Questionnaire for Heads of Maternity Units (MPAC-QHMUs); and the Male Partners' Attendance at Childbirth-Questionnaire for Maternity Staff (MPAC-QMS). We carried out an extensive review to generate initial items of the two questionnaires. We assessed the content and face validity of the two questionnaires in a three-round modified Delphi study. RESULTS: The Male Partners' Attendance at Childbirth-Questionnaire for Heads of Maternity Units (MPAC-QHMUs) focused on organisational and management factors. The Male Partners' Attendance at Childbirth-Questionnaire of Maternity Staff (MPAC-QMS) focused on individual staff factors. The final MPAC-QHMUs and MPAC-QMS included items which garnered over 80% content relevance according to the experts' rating. After all three consensus rounds of the Delphi study, 43 items were retained for the MPAC-QHMUs and 61 items were retained for the MPAC-QMS. CONCLUSIONS: The MPAC-QHMUs and the MPAC-QMS may help understanding of barriers affecting male partners' attendance at childbirth in LMICs in order to devise implementation strategies to enable wider availability and to maximize women's choices during labour and childbirth. The MPAC-QHMUs and the MPAC-QMS as newly-developed questionnaires require further validation of their acceptability and feasibility in different cultural contexts, and languages.

Implementing the Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly initiative in Scotland.

Despite strong policy support in Scotland, United Kingdom, key challenges to scaling up promotion, protection and support for breastfeeding remain. These include low breastfeeding rates and socioeconomic and regional inequalities. The Becoming Breastfeeding-Friendly (BBF) process was implemented to highlight actions that could address these challenges. The Scottish BBF committee employed an iterative process of documentary analysis and evidence reviews supplemented by 18 interviews with key informants. The data were mapped to BBF benchmarks and each gear was scored accordingly. Nineteen draft recommendations addressing policy and practice gaps were prioritised. Ten recommendations were grouped into eight themes, which cross-cut the BBF gears. The process took place from May 2018 to May 2019. The overall BBF Index score for Scotland was 2.4 indicating a strong scaling-up environment for breastfeeding. Five gears were assessed as strong gear strength, and the remaining three were judged as moderate gear strength. Three recommendation themes illuminate strengths and areas for development. The theme 'reinforcing political will' showed effective leadership, strong policies and significant investment in supporting breastfeeding and highlights actions to sustain this. The theme 'strengthening and coordinating breastfeeding messages' revealed a need for coordination between government, health services and the third sector. The theme 'promoting a supportive return to work environment' highlighted that, while employment legislation is not devolved to the Scottish government, action could be taken by employers to optimise an enabling environment for breastfeeding. The BBF process identified strengths and triggered actions to enhance breastfeeding promotion, protection and support in Scotland.

Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies.

BACKGROUND: There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe types of breastfeeding support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. 2. To examine the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding support interventions in terms of whether they offered only breastfeeding support or breastfeeding support in combination with a wider maternal and child health intervention ('breastfeeding plus' support).  3. To examine the effectiveness of the following intervention characteristics on breastfeeding support:      a. type of support (e.g. face-to-face, telephone, digital technologies, group or individual support, proactive or reactive);      b. intensity of support (i.e. number of postnatal contacts);      c. person delivering the intervention (e.g. healthcare professional, lay person);     d. to examine whether the impact of support varied between high- and low-and middle-income countries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes results of searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) (11 May 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. Support could be provided face-to-face, over the phone or via digital technologies. All studies had to meet the trustworthiness criteria.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods. Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and study trustworthiness.  The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 116 trials of which 103 contribute data to the analyses. In total more than 98,816 mother-infant pairs were included.  Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that 'breastfeeding only' support probably reduced the number of women stopping breastfeeding for all primary outcomes: stopping any breastfeeding at six months (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97); stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93); stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97); and stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90). Similar findings were reported for the secondary breastfeeding outcomes except for any breastfeeding at two months and 12 months when the evidence was uncertain if 'breastfeeding only' support helped reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding.  The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' was less consistent. For primary outcomes there was some evidence that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably reduced the number of women stopping any breastfeeding (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97, moderate-certainty evidence) or exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90).  'Breastfeeding plus' interventions may have a beneficial effect on reducing the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). The evidence suggests that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably results in little to no difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08, moderate-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes, it was uncertain if 'breastfeeding plus' support helped reduce the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding at any time points.  There were no consistent findings emerging from the narrative synthesis of the non-breastfeeding outcomes (maternal satisfaction with care, maternal satisfaction with feeding method, infant morbidity, and maternal mental health), except for a possible reduction of diarrhoea in intervention infants.  We considered the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Blinding of participants and personnel is not feasible in such interventions and as studies utilised self-report breastfeeding data, there is also a risk of bias in outcome assessment.   We conducted meta-regression to explore substantial heterogeneity for the primary outcomes using the following categories: person providing care; mode of delivery; intensity of support; and income status of country.  It is possible that moderate levels (defined as 4-8 visits) of 'breastfeeding only' support may be associated with a more beneficial effect on exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and six months. 'Breastfeeding only' support may also be more effective in reducing women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months compared to women in high-income countries (HICs). However, no other differential effects were found and thus heterogeneity remains largely unexplained. The meta-regression suggested that there were no differential effects regarding person providing support or mode of delivery, however, power was limited.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When 'breastfeeding only' support is offered to women, the duration and in particular, the exclusivity of breastfeeding is likely to be increased. Support may also be more effective in reducing the number of women stopping breastfeeding at three to four months compared to later time points.  For 'breastfeeding plus' interventions the evidence is less certain. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Support can also be offered face-to-face, via telephone or digital technologies, or a combination and may be more effective when delivered on a schedule of four to eight visits. Further work is needed to identify components of the effective interventions and to deliver interventions on a larger scale.

Factors that influence women's engagement with breastfeeding support: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

Breastfeeding is an integral part of early childhood interventions as it can prevent serious childhood and maternal illnesses. For breastfeeding support programmes to be effective, a better understanding of contextual factors that influence women's engagement and satisfaction with these programmes is needed. The aim of this synthesis is to suggest strategies to increase the level of satisfaction with support programmes and to better match the expectations and needs of women. We systematically searched for studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis and that focused on women's experiences and perceptions regarding breastfeeding support programmes. We applied a maximum variation purposive sampling strategy and used thematic analysis. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies using a modified version of the CASP tool and assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We included 51 studies of which we sampled 22 for in-depth analysis. Our sampled studies described the experiences of women with formal breastfeeding support by health care professionals in a hospital setting and informal support as for instance from community support groups. Our findings illustrate that the current models of breastfeeding support are dependent on a variety of contextual factors encouraging and supporting women to initiate and continue breastfeeding. They further highlight the relevance of providing different forms of support based on socio-cultural norms and personal backgrounds of women, especially if the support is one-on-one. Feeding decisions of women are situated within a woman's personal situation and may require diverse forms of support.

Detection and management of milk allergy: Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: There is significant overdiagnosis of milk allergy in young children in some countries, leading to unnecessary use of specialized formula. This guidance, developed by experts without commercial ties to the formula industry, aims to reduce milk allergy overdiagnosis and support carers of children with suspected milk allergy. METHODS: Delphi study involving two rounds of anonymous consensus building and an open meeting between January and July 2021. Seventeen experts in general practice, nutrition, midwifery, health visiting, lactation support and relevant areas of paediatrics participated, located in Europe, North America, Middle East, Africa, Australia and Asia. Five authors of previous milk allergy guidelines and seven parents provided feedback. FINDINGS: Participants agreed on 38 essential recommendations through consensus. Recommendations highlighted the importance of reproducibility and specificity for diagnosing milk allergy in children with acute or delayed symptoms temporally related to milk protein ingestion; and distinguished between children directly consuming milk protein and exclusively breastfed infants. Consensus was reached that maternal dietary restriction is not usually necessary to manage milk allergy, and that for exclusively breastfed infants with chronic symptoms, milk allergy diagnosis should only be considered in specific, rare circumstances. Consensus was reached that milk allergy diagnosis does not need to be considered for stool changes, aversive feeding or occasional spots of blood in stool, if there is no temporal relationship with milk protein ingestion. When compared with previous guidelines, these consensus recommendations resulted in more restrictive criteria for detecting milk allergy and a more limited role for maternal dietary exclusions and specialized formula. INTERPRETATION: These new milk allergy recommendations from non-conflicted, multidisciplinary experts advise narrower criteria, more prominent support for breastfeeding and less use of specialized formula, compared with current guidelines.

Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a substantial increase in remotely provided maternity care services, including breastfeeding support. It is, therefore, important to understand whether breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. To determine if breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Twenty-nine studies were included in the review and 26 contributed data to the meta-analysis. Remotely provided breastfeeding support significantly reduced the risk of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months by 25% (risk ratio [RR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63, 0.90). There was no significant difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.64), 3 months (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.11), or 6 months (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.03) or the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.07) or 6 months (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.0). There was substantial heterogeneity of interventions in terms of mode of delivery, intensity, and providers. This demonstrates that remote interventions can be effective for improving exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months but the certainty of the evidence is low. Improvements in exclusive breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks and 6 months were only found when studies at high risk of bias were excluded. They are also less likely to be effective for improving any breastfeeding. Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education could be provided when it is not possible to provide face-to-face care.

Cue-based versus scheduled feeding for preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding: the Cubs mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence of the effect of cue-based feeding compared with scheduled feeding on important outcomes for preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were as follows: (1) to describe the characteristics, components, theoretical basis and outcomes of approaches to feeding preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding; (2) to identify operational policies, barriers and facilitators, and staff and parents' educational needs in neonatal units implementing cue-based feeding; (3) to co-produce an intervention for feeding preterm infants in response to feeding cues; (4) to appraise the willingness of parents and staff to implement and sustain the intervention; (5) to assess associated costs of implementing cue-based feeding; (6) to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a future trial; (7) to scope existing data-recording systems and potential outcome measures; and (8) to determine stakeholders' views of whether or not a randomised controlled trial of this approach is feasible. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods intervention development and feasibility study comprising (1) a systematic review, case studies, qualitative research and stakeholder consensus; (2) the co-production of the intervention; (3) a mixed-methods feasibility study; and (4) an assessment of stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation. SETTING: Three neonatal units in the UK (two level 3 units and one level 2 unit). PARTICIPANTS: Developmentally normal, clinically stable preterm infants receiving enteral feeds (n = 50), parents (n = 15 pre intervention development; n = 14 in the feasibility study) and health-care practitioners (n = 54 pre intervention development; n = 16 in the feasibility study). INTERVENTION: An evidence-informed multicomponent intervention comprising training, a feeding protocol, feeding assessment tools, supplementary training materials [including posters, a film and a narrated PowerPoint (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) presentation] and the 'Our Feeding Journey' document. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were recruitment and screening rates, infant weight gain, duration of the intervention, feeding outcomes, implementation outcomes (contextual facilitators and barriers, acceptability, adoption, appropriateness and fidelity) and stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation. RESULTS: The systematic review of 25 studies concluded that evidence in favour of cue-based feeding should be treated cautiously. The case studies and qualitative research highlighted contextual barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of cue-based feeding. The telephone survey found that many neonatal units are considering implementing cue-based feeding. We recruited 37% of eligible infants, and there was good retention in the study until discharge but a high loss to follow-up at 2 weeks post discharge. The mean number of days from intervention to transition to full oral feeding was 10.8, and the mean daily change in weight gain was 25 g. The intervention was acceptable to parents and staff, although there was dissatisfaction with the study documentation. Intervention training did not reach all staff. A cluster-randomised design with a composite outcome was suggested by stakeholders for a future study. LIMITATIONS: The intervention was available only in English. Intervention training did not reach all staff. There was low recruitment to qualitative interviews and observations. Only a small number of medical staff engaged in either the training or the interviews. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to implement a cue-based feeding intervention with improved training and documentation. Further work is needed to assess the feasibility of a future trial, noting evidence of existing lack of equipoise. FUTURE WORK: The next steps are to digitalise the intervention and conduct a survey of all neonatal units in the UK. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018097317 and ISRCTN13414304. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Preterm babies who are ready to progress from tube feeding to oral feeding are usually fed according to a fixed schedule. Scheduled feeding protocols set a minimum corrected gestational age at which oral feeding may commence, and specify the rate of change from tube to oral feeding. Scheduled feeding also sets the volume and timing of each feed. A few small studies show that feeding babies according to their cues might have benefits for them and their parents; for example, babies may be discharged from hospital sooner. Cue-based feeding may help parents to understand the needs of their baby and be more involved in their care. Examples of hunger cues are mouthing movements, bringing hands to mouth and sucking. Examples of stop cues are falling asleep and stopping sucking. We developed a cue-based feeding intervention and tested it in three neonatal units to see if a large trial could be done and if parents and staff liked the intervention. We reviewed previous research, visited three hospitals that use cue-based feeding and interviewed parents and staff about their experiences of feeding preterm babies. We developed the intervention with parents and staff. The intervention included a feeding protocol, training for parents and staff, and a feeding record. Parents and staff liked most parts of the intervention. The training did not reach all staff, and staff and parents found it time-consuming to record every feed. Many parents and staff thought that cue-based feeding was better for babies, and parents thought that neonatal units should change to cue-based feeding. We discussed our findings with parents, staff and research experts. Based on their ideas, we recommend that the intervention is developed into an app (application) and that all neonatal units in the UK are surveyed to find out if they use cue-based feeding and if they would agree to be part of a large trial.

Signal complexity indicators of health status in clinical EEG.

Brain signal variability changes across the lifespan in both health and disease, likely reflecting changes in information processing capacity related to development, aging and neurological disorders. While signal complexity, and multiscale entropy (MSE) in particular, has been proposed as a biomarker for neurological disorders, most observations of altered signal complexity have come from studies comparing patients with few to no comorbidities against healthy controls. In this study, we examined whether MSE of brain signals was distinguishable across patient groups in a large and heterogeneous set of clinical-EEG data. Using a multivariate analysis, we found unique timescale-dependent differences in MSE across various neurological disorders. We also found MSE to differentiate individuals with non-brain comorbidities, suggesting that MSE is sensitive to brain signal changes brought about by metabolic and other non-brain disorders. Such changes were not detectable in the spectral power density of brain signals. Our findings suggest that brain signal complexity may offer complementary information to spectral power about an individual's health status and is a promising avenue for clinical biomarker development.

Systematic review of barriers to, and facilitators of, the provision of high-quality midwifery services in India.

BACKGROUND: The Indian government has committed to implementing high-quality midwifery care to achieve universal health coverage and reduce the burden of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. There are multiple challenges, including introducing a new cadre of midwives educated to international standards and integrating midwifery into the health system with a defined scope of practice. The objective of this review was to examine the facilitators and barriers to providing high-quality midwifery care in India. METHODS: We searched 15 databases for studies relevant to the provision of midwifery care in India. The findings were mapped to two global quality frameworks to identify barriers and facilitators to providing high-quality midwifery care in India. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included. Key barriers were lack of competence of maternity care providers, lack of legislation recognizing midwives as autonomous professionals and limited scope of practice, social and economic barriers to women accessing services, and lack of basic health system infrastructure. Facilitators included providing more hands-on experience during training, monitoring and supervision of staff, utilizing midwives to their full scope of practice with good referral systems, improving women's experiences of maternity care, and improving health system infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS: The findings can be used to inform policy and practice. Overcoming the identified barriers will be critical to achieving the Government of India's plans to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality through the introduction of a new cadre of midwives. This is unlikely to be effective until the facilitators described are in place.

The provision of midwife-led care in low-and middle-income countries: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: The provision of midwife-led care, the model of care in which midwives are the lead professionals for women and newborn infants across the continuum, has been shown to be effective in improving outcomes for women and newborn infants, but predominantly based on research in high-income countries. OBJECTIVE: To explore how midwife-led care is provided in low- and middle-income countries. The specific question was to examine how, where and by whom has midwife-led care been provided in low-and-middle-income countries? DESIGN: An integrative literature review was undertaken and included studies using a range of methods. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed, EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, The Cochrane Library and hand-searching of relevant journals and website of International Organizations and relevant grey-literature. REVIEW METHODS: After applying inclusion criteria, systematic sifting and quality assessment processes, data were extracted from relevant studies. The software program NVivo was used to initially extract the findings and results of the studies. Coded data from primary data sources were iteratively compared, using patterns and themes as per the conceptual framework of the WHO on skilled health personnel providing care for childbearing women and newborn infants, including an analysis of the competent provider, standards of practice and the enabling environment. FINDINGS: Of a total of 3324 articles retrieved, 31 studies were included. There were 18 qualitative, nine quantitative and four mixed method studies with different levels of quality from five of six global regions published between 1997 and 2017. In these studies, midwife-led care was not found to be a standardised model in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and there was limited evidence on the effectiveness of midwife-led care in these countries. Care provided across the continuum was however described in most studies. Standards of practice in education, regulation and training varied widely as did the enabling environment in which midwife-led care took place. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH: Midwife-led care is provided across low- and middle-income countries but lack of enabling factors limits the quality of care that midwives can provide. Further research about this model of care is needed to understand the ingredients of successful implementation, their effectiveness and sustainability.

Counselling interventions to enable women to initiate and continue breastfeeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Many infants worldwide are not breastfeeding according to WHO recommendations and this impacts on the health of women and children. Increasing breastfeeding is identified as a priority area supported by current policy targets. However, interventions are complex and multi-component and it is unclear which elements of interventions are most effective to increase breastfeeding in which settings. Breastfeeding counselling is often part of complex interventions but evidence is lacking on the specific effect of counselling interventions on breastfeeding practices. The aim of this systematic review is to examine evidence on effectiveness of breastfeeding counselling to inform global guidelines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted of six electronic databases in January 2018. Randomised controlled trials comparing breastfeeding counselling with no breastfeeding counselling or different formulations of counselling were included if they measured breastfeeding practices between birth and 24 months after birth. Results: From the 5180 records identified in searches and a further 11 records found by hand searching, 63 studies were included. Of these, 48 were individually-randomised trials and 15 were cluster-randomised trials. A total of 69 relevant comparisons were reported involving 33,073 women. There was a significant effect of counselling interventions on any breastfeeding at 4 to 6 weeks (Relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.77, 0.94) and 6 months (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87, 0.94). Greater effects were found on exclusive breastfeeding at 4 to 6 weeks (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72, 0.87) and 6 months (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78, 0.91). Counselling delivered at least four times postnatally is more effective than counselling delivered antenatally only and/or fewer than four times. Evidence was mostly of low quality due to high or unclear risk of bias of the included trials and high heterogeneity. Conclusions: Breastfeeding counselling is an effective public health intervention to increase rates of any and exclusive breastfeeding. Breastfeeding counselling should be provided face-to-face, and in addition, may be provided by telephone, both antenatally and postnatally, to all pregnant women and mothers with young children. To inform scale-up globally there is a need to further understand the elements of breastfeeding interventions such as counselling and their effectiveness in different contexts and circumstances. Study registration: This systematic review was registered in Prospero (CRD42018086494).

Using a quality care framework to evaluate user and provider experiences of maternity care: A comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: The Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework describes the components and characteristics of quality care and emphasises relational and continuity elements. Continuity of care is increasingly a focus of maternity care policy in the United Kingdom. While some outcomes have been shown to be improved, there is uncertainty about why certain models of care are more effective. Our overall objective is to develop a maternity care evaluation toolkit which incorporates this Framework along with other outcome evaluations. An initial step in developing this toolkit was to use the adapted Framework to evaluate perceptions and experiences of maternity care. Our specific objective in this study was to test this adapted Framework in a series of focus groups with key stakeholders, and to compare findings between different groups. Findings related to service users (pregnant women and new mothers) are reported in our accompanying paper; this paper presents findings from focus groups with service providers (midwives and obstetricians), and then compares user and provider perspectives. DESIGN: A qualitative comparative enquiry involving three focus groups with 26 midwives (eight newly qualified; eight working in a community midwifery unit; and ten senior tertiary-based) and two focus groups with twelve obstetricians of all grades. We used a six-phase thematic analysis to derive then compare the focus groups' principal sub-themes; we then mapped these to the original Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework and compared these service providers' responses with those from the pregnant women and new mothers. SETTING: Two health boards in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Midwives and obstetricians who had experience of various models of maternity care. FINDINGS: There were significant areas of overlap in their perceptions of providing maternity care. All groups reported 'limited resources and time'; the community midwifery unit and senior midwives and one group of obstetricians provided a critique of the system. Achieving tailored care was acknowledged as a problem by the senior midwives and one group of obstetricians. Only obstetricians discussed strategies for improvement. The newly qualified midwives were most positive in their responses. There was both overlap and contrast when comparing the views of service users and providers. We found most agreement when participants discussed some of the Framework's characteristics of care in negative terms, such as (in) accessible care, (lack of) adequate resources, and (absence of) tailored care. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Being able firstly to map the participants' responses to the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework, and then to identify strengths and gaps in the provision of quality maternity care, suggests to us that the Framework, derived as it is from a comprehensive analysis of the global evidence on quality care, can indeed be used to inform an evaluation toolkit. While aware that we cannot generalise from this limited qualitative study, we are currently undertaking similar work in other countries by which we hope to confirm our findings and further develop the toolkit.

Using the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework to evaluate women's experiences of different models of care: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence that continuity of care - increasingly a focus of maternity care policy in the UK - contributes to improved outcomes. However, uncertainty remains about which models of care are most effective in which circumstances, and why this is. A plausible explanation is grounded in the idea that the continuity elements of care contribute to and reinforce best quality care. The Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework describes the components and characteristics of quality care. As a first step in developing a maternity care evaluation toolkit, we adapted this Framework to see if it could be used to evaluate perceptions and experiences of different models of care. DESIGN: A qualitative comparative enquiry using focus groups. From a six-phase thematic analysis, we first derived then compared the principal sub-themes from the focus groups and mapped these to the original Framework. SETTING: Two health boards in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women, new mothers, midwives and obstetricians who had experience of various models of maternity care. This paper reports findings from the pregnant women and new mothers. RESULTS: These are presented in two parts: the seven focus groups with pregnant women and new mothers are reported in this paper; the five focus groups with midwives and obstetricians in our accompanying paper. Those using the maternity services had experience of caseloading midwifery, 'modified universal provision' and 'high risk' models of maternity care. While women from all groups shared certain perspectives, those with experience of caseloading midwifery were consistently positive, reporting positive relationships, tailored care and effective communication. Women experiencing other models of care, especially the modified universal provision model, tended to report more negative relational experiences: lack of information, lack of tailored care, and anxiety and confusion. Timing of the focus group (i.e. during pregnancy or after the birth) appeared to make little difference to responses. Mapping responses to the Framework's characteristics of care was straightforward; mapping also showed how the Framework's components of care are interlinked. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Our adaptation of the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework as a data collection tool allowed us to compare women with experience of different models of care, and relational factors were identifiable in many responses. Positive responses were found in all models but were most emphasised in the caseloading midwifery model, suggesting that the experience of caseloading continuity and its relational elements is highly valued. While further work is required to identify if this can be linked to improved clinical outcomes, we have established that the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework can be adapted as an exploratory tool for assessing perceptions and experiences of maternity care.

The role and scope of practice of midwives in humanitarian settings: a systematic review and content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Midwives have an essential role to play in preparing for and providing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in humanitarian settings due to their unique knowledge and skills, position as frontline providers and geographic and social proximity to the communities they serve. There are considerable gaps in the international guidance that defines the scope of practice of midwives in crises, particularly for the mitigation and preparedness, and recovery phases. We undertook a systematic review to provide further clarification of this scope of practice and insights to optimise midwifery performance. The review aimed to determine what SRH services midwives are involved in delivering across the emergency management cycle in humanitarian contexts, and how they are working with other professionals to deliver health care. METHODS: Four electronic databases and the websites of 33 organisations were searched between January and March 2017. Papers were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English between 2007 and 2017 and reported primary research pertaining to the role of midwives in delivering and performing any component of sexual and/or reproductive health in humanitarian settings. Content analysis was used to map the study findings to the Minimum Initial Service Package (MISP) for SRH across the three phases of the disaster management cycle and identify how midwives work with other members of the health care team. RESULTS: Fourteen studies from ten countries were included. Twelve studies were undertaken in conflict settings, and two were conducted in the context of the aftermath of natural disasters. We found a paucity of evidence from the research literature that examines the activities and roles undertaken by midwives across the disaster management cycle. This lack of evidence was more apparent during the mitigation and preparedness, and recovery phases than the response phase of the disaster management cycle. CONCLUSION: Research-informed guidelines and strategies are required to better align the scope of practice of midwives with the objectives of multi-agency guidelines and agreements, as well as the activities of the MISP, to ensure that the potential of midwives can be acknowledged and optimised across the disaster management cycle.