Separation at birth due to safeguarding concerns: Using reproductive justice theory to re-think the role of midwives.

Separation at birth due to safeguarding concerns is a deeply distressing and impactful event, with numbers rising across the world, and has devastating outcomes for birth mothers and their children. It is one of the most challenging aspects of contemporary midwifery practice in high-income countries, although rarely discussed and reflected on during pre- and post-registration midwifery training. Ethnic and racial disparities are prevalent both in child protection and maternity services and can be explained through an intersectional lens, accounting for biases based on race, gender, class, and societal beliefs around motherhood. With this paper, we aim to contribute to the growing body of critical midwifery studies and re-think the role of midwives in this context. Building on principles of reproductive justice theory, Intersectionality, and Standpoint Midwifery, we argue that midwives play a unique role when supporting women who go through child protection processes and should pursue a shift from passive bystander to active upstander to improve care for this group of mothers.

Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

BACKGROUND: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.

Women's experiences of maternity care in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic: A follow-up systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Maternity care services in the United Kingdom have undergone drastic changes due to pandemic-related restrictions. Prior research has shown maternity care during the pandemic was negatively experienced by women and led to poor physical and mental health outcomes in pregnancy. A synthesis is required of published research on women's experiences of maternity care during the latter half of the COVID-19 pandemic. AIM: To update a previous systematic review of maternity care experiences during the pandemic to June 2021, exploring experiences of maternity care specifically within the United Kingdom and how they may have changed, in order to inform future maternity services. METHODS: A systematic review of qualitative literature was conducted using comprehensive searches of five electronic databases and the Cochrane COVID Study Register, published between 1 June 2021 and 13 October 2022, and further updated to 30 September 2023. Thematic Synthesis was utilised for data synthesis. FINDINGS: Of 21,860 records identified, 27 studies were identified for inclusion. Findings included 14 descriptive themes across the five core concepts: (1)Care-seeking and experience; (2)Virtual care; (3)Self-monitoring; (4)COVID-19 vaccination; (5)Ethical future of maternity care. DISCUSSION: Our findings in the UK are consistent with those globally, and extend those of the previous systematic review, particularly about women's perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest the following are important to women for future maternity care: personalisation and inclusiveness; clear and evidence-based communication to facilitate informed decision-making; and achieving balance between social commitments and time spent settling into motherhood.

Interventions to improve perinatal outcomes among migrant women in high-income countries: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Women who are migrants and who are pregnant or postpartum are at high risk of poorer perinatal outcomes compared with host country populations due to experiencing numerous additional stressors including social exclusion and language barriers. High-income countries (HICs) host many migrants, including forced migrants who may face additional challenges in the peripartum period. Although HICs' maternity care systems are often well developed, they are not routinely tailored to the needs of migrant women. The primary objective will be to determine what interventions exist to improve perinatal outcomes for migrant women in HICs. The secondary objective will be to explore the effectiveness of these interventions by exploring the impact on perinatal outcomes. The main outcomes of interest will be rates of preterm birth, birth weight, and number of antenatal or postnatal appointments attended. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Protocols guidelines. EMBASE, EMCARE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science, as well as grey literature sources will be searched from inception up to December 2022. We will include randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and interventional studies of interventions, which aim to improve perinatal outcomes in any HIC. There will be no language restrictions. We will exclude studies presenting only qualitative outcomes and those including mixed populations of migrant and non-migrant women. Screening and data extraction will be completed by two independent reviewers and risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. If a collection of suitably comparable outcomes is retrieved, we will perform meta-analysis applying a random effects model. Presentation of results will comply with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. Results will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication and presented at national and international conferences. The findings will inform the work of the Lancet Migration European Hub. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022380678.

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.

Project20: maternity care mechanisms that improve access and engagement for women with social risk factors in the UK - a mixed-methods, realist evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how women access and engage with different models of maternity care, whether specialist models improve access and engagement for women with social risk factors, and if so, how? DESIGN: Realist evaluation. SETTING: Two UK maternity service providers. PARTICIPANTS: Women accessing maternity services in 2019 (n=1020). METHODS: Prospective observational cohort with multinomial regression analysis to compare measures of access and engagement between models and place of antenatal care. Realist informed, longitudinal interviews with women accessing specialist models of care were analysed to identify mechanisms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of access and engagement, healthcare-seeking experiences. RESULTS: The number of social risk factors women were experiencing increased with deprivation score, with the most deprived more likely to receive a specialist model that provided continuity of care. Women attending hospital-based antenatal care were more likely to access maternity care late (risk ratio (RR) 2.51, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.70), less likely to have the recommended number of antenatal appointments (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99) and more likely to have over 15 appointments (RR 4.90, 95% CI 2.50 to 9.61) compared with community-based care. Women accessing standard care (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.11) and black women (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.11) were less likely to have appointments with a known healthcare professional compared with the specialist model. Qualitative data revealed mechanisms for improved access and engagement including self-referral, relational continuity with a small team of midwives, flexibility and situating services within deprived community settings. CONCLUSION: Inequalities in access and engagement with maternity care appears to have been mitigated by the community-based specialist model that provided continuity of care. The findings enabled the refinement of a realist programme theory to inform those developing maternity services in line with current policy.

Project20: Maternity care mechanisms that improve (or exacerbate) health inequalities. A realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Women with low socioeconomic status and social risk factors are at a disproportionate risk of poor birth outcomes and experiences of maternity care. Specialist models of maternity care that offer continuity are known to improve outcomes but underlying mechanisms are not well understood. AIM: To evaluate two UK specialist models of care that provide continuity to women with social risk factors and identify specific mechanisms that reduce, or exacerbate, health inequalities. METHODS: Realist informed interviews were undertaken throughout pregnancy and the postnatal period with 20 women with social risk factors who experienced a specialist model of care. FINDINGS: Experiences of stigma, discrimination and paternalistic care were reported when women were not in the presence of a known midwife during care episodes. Practical and emotional support, and evidence-based information offered by a known midwife improved disclosure of social risk factors, eased perceptions of surveillance and enabled active participation. Continuity of care offered reduced women's anxiety, enabled the development of a supportive network and improved women's ability to seek timely help. Women described how specialist model midwives knew their medical and social history and how this improved safety. Care set in the community by a team of six known midwives appeared to enhance these benefits. CONCLUSION: The identification of specific maternity care mechanisms supports current policy initiatives to scale up continuity models and will be useful in future evaluation of services for marginalised groups. However, the specialist models of care cannot overcome all inequalities without improvements in the maternity system as a whole.

Project20: interpreter services for pregnant women with social risk factors in England: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how?

BACKGROUND: Black and minority ethnic women and those with social risk factors such as deprivation, refugee and asylum seeker status, homelessness, mental health issues and domestic violence are at a disproportionate risk of poor birth outcomes. Language barriers further exacerbate this risk, with women struggling to access, engage with maternity services and communicate concerns to healthcare professionals. To address the language barrier, many UK maternity services offer telephone interpreter services. This study explores whether or not women with social risk factors find these interpreter services acceptable, accessible and safe, and to suggest solutions to address challenges. METHODS: Realist methodology was used to refine previously constructed programme theories about how women with language barriers access and experience interpreter services during their maternity care. Twenty-one longitudinal interviews were undertaken during pregnancy and the postnatal period with eight non-English speaking women and their family members. Interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis to confirm, refute or refine the programme theories and identify specific contexts, mechanisms and outcomes relating to interpreter services. RESULTS: Women with language barriers described difficulties accessing maternity services, a lack of choice of interpreter, suspicion around the level of confidentiality interpreter services provide, and questioned how well professional interpreters were able to interpret what they were trying to relay to the healthcare professional during appointments. This resulted in many women preferring to use a known and trusted family member or friend to interpret for them where possible. Their insights provide detailed insight into how poor-quality interpreter services impact on their ability to disclose risk factors and communicate concerns effectively with their healthcare providers. A refined programme theory puts forward mechanisms to improve their experiences and safety such as regulated, high-quality interpreter services throughout their maternity care, in which women have choice, trust and confidence. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study contribute to concerns highlighted in previous literature around interpreter services in the wider healthcare arena, particularly around the lack of regulation and access to high-quality interpretation. This is thought to have a significant effect on pregnant women who are living socially complex lives as they are not able to communicate their concerns and access support. This not only impacts on their safety and pregnancy outcomes, but also their wider holistic needs. The refined program theory developed in this study offers insights into the mechanisms of equitable access to appropriate interpreter services for pregnant women with language barriers.

Project20: Does continuity of care and community-based antenatal care improve maternal and neonatal birth outcomes for women with social risk factors? A prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Social factors associated with poor childbirth outcomes and experiences of maternity care include minority ethnicity, poverty, young motherhood, homelessness, difficulty speaking or understanding English, migrant or refugee status, domestic violence, mental illness and substance abuse. It is not known what specific aspects of maternity care work to improve the maternal and neonatal outcomes for these under-served, complex populations. METHODS: This study aimed to compare maternal and neonatal clinical birth outcomes for women with social risk factors accessing different models of maternity care. Quantitative data on pregnancy and birth outcome measures for 1000 women accessing standard care, group practice and specialist models of care at two large, inner-city maternity services were prospectively collected and analysed using multinominal regression. The level of continuity of care and place of antenatal care were used as independent variables to explore these potentially influential aspects of care. Outcomes adjusted for women's social and medical risk factors and the service attended. RESULTS: Women who received standard maternity care were significantly less likely to use water for pain relief in labour (RR 0.11, CI 0.02-0.62) and have skin to skin contact with their baby shortly after birth (RR 0.34, CI 0.14-0.80) compared to the specialist model of care. Antenatal care based in the hospital setting was associated with a significant increase in preterm birth (RR 2.38, CI 1.32-4.27) and low birth weight (RR 2.31, CI 1.24-4.32), and a decrease in induction of labour (RR 0.65, CI 0.45-0.95) compared to community-based antenatal care, this was despite women's medical risk factors. A subgroup analysis found that preterm birth was increased further for women with the highest level of social risk accessing hospital-based antenatal care (RR 3.11, CI1.49-6.50), demonstrating the protective nature of community-based antenatal care. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights how community-based antenatal care, with a focus on continuity of carer reduced health inequalities and improved maternal and neonatal clinical outcomes for women with social risk factors. The findings support the current policy drive to increase continuity of midwife-led care, whilst adding that community-based care may further improve outcomes for women at increased risk of health inequalities. The relationship between community-based models of care and neonatal outcomes require further testing in future research. The identification of specific mechanisms such as help-seeking and reduced anxiety, to explain these findings are explored in a wider evaluation.

A realist review to explore how midwifery continuity of care may influence preterm birth in pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Midwifery continuity of care models are the only health system intervention associated with both a reduction in preterm birth (PTB) and an improvement in perinatal survival; however, questions remain about the mechanisms by which such positive outcomes are achieved. We aimed to uncover theories of change by which we can postulate how and why continuity of midwifery care models might affect PTB. METHODS: We followed Pawson's guidance for conducting a realist review and performed a comprehensive search to identify existing literature exploring the impact of continuity models on PTB in all pregnant women. A realist methodology was used to uncover the context (C), mechanisms (M), and outcomes (O) and to develop a group of CMO configurations to illuminate middle-range theories. RESULTS: Eleven papers were included from a wide variety of settings in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States. The majority of study participants had low socioeconomic status or social risk factors and received diverse models of midwifery continuity of care. Three themes-woman-midwife partnership, maternity pathways and processes, and system resources-encompassed ten CMO configurations. Building relationships, trust, confidence, and advocacy resulted in women feeling safer, less stressed, and more secure and respected, and encouraged them to access and engage in antenatal care with more opportunities for early prevention and diagnosis of complications, which facilitated effective management when compliance to guidelines was ensured. Organizational infrastructure, innovative partnerships, and robust community systems are crucial to overcome barriers, address women's complex needs, ensure quality of care, and reduce PTB risk. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women living in different contexts in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States at low and mixed risk of complications and with low socioeconomic status or social risk factors experienced continuity models in similar ways, and similar underlying mechanisms may have influenced PTB outcomes. Further research is required to understand how continuity models may influence behavioral change, physiological stress levels, ethnic disparities in PTB and care coordination, and navigation of health services.

Addressing inequities in maternal health among women living in communities of social disadvantage and ethnic diversity.

The response to the coronavirus outbreak and how the disease and its societal consequences pose risks to already vulnerable groups such those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and ethnic minority groups. Researchers and community groups analysed how the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated persisting vulnerabilities, socio-economic and structural disadvantage and discrimination faced by many communities of social disadvantage and ethnic diversity, and discussed future strategies on how best to engage and involve local groups in research to improve outcomes for childbearing women experiencing mental illness and those living in areas of social disadvantage and ethnic diversity. Discussions centred around: access, engagement and quality of care; racism, discrimination and trust; the need for engagement with community stakeholders; and the impact of wider social and economic inequalities. Addressing biomedical factors alone is not sufficient, and integrative and holistic long-term public health strategies that address societal and structural racism and overall disadvantage in society are urgently needed to improve health disparities and can only be implemented in partnership with local communities.

Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings.

BACKGROUND: There is now a rising commitment to acknowledge the role patients and families play in contributing to their safety. This review focuses on one type of involvement in safety - patient and family involvement in escalation of care for serious life-threatening conditions i.e. helping secure a step-up to urgent or emergency care - which has been receiving increasing policy and practice attention. This review was concerned with the negotiation work that patient and family members undertake across the emergency care escalation pathway, once contact has been made with healthcare staff. It includes interventions aiming to improve detection of symptoms, communication of concerns and staff response to these concerns. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness on patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP) ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from 1 Jan 2000 to 24 August 2018. The search was updated on 21 October 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials where the intervention focused on patients and families working with healthcare professionals to ensure care received for acute deterioration was timely and appropriate. A key criterion was to include an interactive element of rehearsal, role play, modelling, shared language, group work etc. to the intervention to help patients and families have agency in the process of escalation of care. The interventions included components such as enabling patients and families to detect changes in patients' conditions and to speak up about these changes to staff. We also included studies where the intervention included a component targeted at enabling staff response. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seven of the eight authors were involved in screening; two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion to reach consensus. Primary outcomes included patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events. Our advisory group (four users and four providers) ensured that the review was of relevance and could inform policy and practice. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies involving 436,684 patients and family members and one ongoing study. The published studies focused on patients with specific conditions such as coronary artery disease, ischaemic stroke, and asthma, as well as pregnant women, inpatients on medical surgical wards, older adults and high-risk patients with a history of poor self-management. While all studies tested interventions versus usual care, for four studies the usual care group also received educational or information strategies. Seven of the interventions involved face-to-face, interactional education/coaching sessions aimed at patients/families while two provided multi-component education programmes which included components targeted at staff as well as patients/families. All of the interventions included: (1) an educational component about the acute condition and preparedness for future events such as stroke or change in fetal movements: (2) an engagement element (self-monitoring, action plans); while two additionally focused on shared language or communication skills. We had concerns about risk of bias for all but one of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, particularly regarding blinding of participants and personnel. Our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was moderate to low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be moderate improvement in patients' knowledge of acute life-threatening conditions, danger signs, appropriate care-seeking responses, and preparedness capacity between interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes and usual care at 12 months (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.44 to 5.97, 2 studies, 687 participants). Four studies in total assessed knowledge (3,086 participants) but we were unable to include two other studies in the pooled analysis due to differences in the way outcome measures were reported. One found no improvement in knowledge but higher symptom preparedness at 12 months. The other study found an improvement in patients' knowledge about symptoms and appropriate care-seeking responses in the intervention group at 18 months compared with usual care. Low-certainty evidence from two studies, each using a different measure, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of patient-based interventions on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was higher in the intervention group in one study but there was no difference in the other compared with usual care. We are uncertain whether interactional patient-facing and multi-component programmes improve time from the start of patient symptoms to treatment due to low-certainty evidence for this outcome. We were unable to combine the data due to differences in outcome measures. Three studies found that arrival times or prehospital delay time was no different between groups. One found that delay time was shorter in the intervention group. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that multi-component interventions probably have little or no impact on mortality rates. Only one study on a pregnant population was eligible for inclusion in the review, which found no difference between groups in rates of stillbirth. In terms of unintended events, we found that interactional patient-facing interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies measured or reported patient and family perceptions of involvement in escalation of care or patient and family experience of patient care. Reported outcomes related to healthcare professionals were also not reported in any studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified that interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes (including staff) to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness may improve patient and family knowledge about danger signs and care-seeking responses, and probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels when compared to usual care. Multi-component interventions probably have little impact on mortality rates. Further high-quality trials are required using multi-component interventions and a focus on relational elements of care. Cognitive and behavioural outcomes should be included at patient and staff level.

Project 20: Midwives' insight into continuity of care models for women with social risk factors: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how.

INTRODUCTION: Continuity of care models are known to improve clinical outcomes for women and their babies, but it is not understood how. A realist synthesis of how women with social risk factors experience UK maternity care reported mechanisms thought to improve clinical outcomes and experiences. As part of a broader programme of work to test those theories and fill gaps in the literature base we conducted focus groups with midwives working within continuity of care models of care for women with social factors that put them at a higher chance of having poor birth outcomes. These risk factors can include poverty and social isolation, asylum or refugee status, domestic abuse, mental illness, learning difficulties, and substance abuse problems. OBJECTIVE: To explore the insights of midwives working in continuity models of care for women with social risk factors in order to understand the resources they provide, and how the model of care can improve women's outcomes. DESIGN: Realist methodology was used to gain a deeper understanding of how women react to specific resources that the models of care offer and how these resources are thought to lead to particular outcomes for women. Twelve midwives participated, six from a continuity of care model implemented in a community setting serving an area of deprivation in London, and six from a continuity of care model for women with social risk factors, based within a large teaching hospital in London. FINDINGS: Three main themes were identified: 'Perceptions of the model of care, 'Tailoring the service to meet women's needs', 'Going above and beyond'. Each theme is broken down into three subthemes to reveal specific resources or mechanisms which midwives felt might have an impact on women's outcomes, and how women with different social risk factors respond to these mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Overall the midwives in both models of care felt the service was beneficial to women and had a positive impact on their outcomes. It was thought the trusting relationships they had built with women enabled midwives to guide women through a fragmented, unfamiliar system and respond to their individual physical, emotional, and social needs, whilst ensuring follow-up of appointments and test results. Midwives felt that for these women the impact of a trusting relationship affected how much information women disclosed, allowing for enhanced, needs led, holistic care. Interesting mechanisms were identified when discussing women who had social care involvement with midwives revealing techniques they used to advocate for women and help them to regain trust in the system and demonstrate their parenting abilities. Differences in how each team provided care and its impact on women's outcomes were considered with the midwives in the community-based model reporting how their location enabled them to help women integrate into their local community and make use of specialist services. The study demonstrates the complexity of these models of care, with midwives using innovative and compassionate ways of working to meet the multifaceted needs of this population.

How do women with social risk factors experience United Kingdom maternity care? A realist synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Echoing international trends, the most recent United Kingdom reports of infant and maternal mortality found that pregnancies to women with social risk factors are over 50% more likely to end in stillbirth or neonatal death and carry an increased risk of premature birth and maternal death. The aim of this realist synthesis was to uncover the mechanisms that affect women's experiences of maternity care. METHODS: Using realist methodology, 22 papers exploring how women with a wide range of social risk factors experience maternity care in the United Kingdom were included. The data extraction process identified contexts (C), mechanisms (M), and outcomes (0). RESULTS: Three themes, Resources, Relationships, and Candidacy, overarched eight CMO configurations. Access to services, appropriate education, interpreters, practical support, and continuity of care were particularly relevant for women who are unfamiliar with the United Kingdom system and those living chaotic lives. For women with experience of trauma, or those who lack a sense of control, a trusting relationship with a health care professional was key to regaining trust. Many women who have social care involvement during their pregnancy perceive health care services as a system of surveillance rather than support, impacting on their engagement. This, as well as experiences of paternalistic care and discrimination, could be mitigated through the ability to develop trusting relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide underlying theory and practical guidance on how to develop safe services that aim to reduce inequalities in women's experiences and birth outcomes.

A multisite audit to assess how women with complex social factors access and engage with maternity services.

OBJECTIVE: to audit women with socially complex lives' documented access to and engagement with antenatal care provided by three inner city, UK maternity services in relation to birth and neonatal outcomes, and referral processes. BACKGROUND: women living socially complex lives, including young mothers, recently arrived immigrants, non-English speaking, and those experiencing domestic violence, poor mental health, drug and alcohol abuse, and poverty experience high rates of morbidity, mortality and poor birth outcomes. This is associated with late access to and poor engagement with antenatal care. METHOD: data was collected from three separate NHS trusts data management systems for a total of 182 women living socially complex lives, between January and December 2015. Data was presented by individual trust and compared to standards derived from NICE guidelines, local trust policy and national statistic using Excel and SPSS Version 22. Tests of correlation were carried out to minimise risks of confounding factors in characteristic differences. FINDINGS: non-English speaking women were much less likely to have accessed care within the recommended timeframes, with over 70% of the sample not booked for maternity care by 12 weeks gestation. On average 89% primiparous women across all samples had less than the recommended number of antenatal appointments. No sample met the audit criteria in terms of number of antenatal appointments attended. Data held on the perinatal data management systems for a number of outcomes and processes was largely incomplete and appeared unreliable. CONCLUSION: this data forms a baseline against which to assess the impact of future service developments aimed at improving access and engagement with services for women living with complex social factors. The audit identified issues with the completeness and reliability of data on the perinatal data management system.

An investigation of the relationship between the caseload model of midwifery for socially disadvantaged women and childbirth outcomes using routine data--a retrospective, observational study.

OBJECTIVE: the objective of this study was to describe and compare childbirth outcomes and processes for women with complex social factors who received caseload midwifery care, and standard maternity care in the UK. BACKGROUND: women with complex social factors experience high rates of morbidity, mortality and poor birth outcomes. A caseload team was established to support these women throughout pregnancy and childbirth by providing continuity and individualised care. METHODS: data was collected from computerised birth details of 194 women with complex social factors who presented for maternity care between May 2012 and June 2013; 96 received standard care and 98 caseload care. SPSS v21 was used to calculate descriptive and inferential statistics. Logistic regression modelling found no differences in demographics, therefore unadjusted statistics are presented. Comparative analysis between women receiving caseload care and those receiving standard care was accomplished using χ2 test, relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: the relationship between type of care and outcome was not changed by the inclusion of confounding factors. Women receiving caseload care were more likely to experience; spontaneous vaginal childbirth (80% versus 55% RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.27-2.77, P=<0.001), use water for pain relief (32% versus 10%, RR 4.10 95% CI 1.95-8.64, p=<0.001), birth in the midwife led centre (26% versus 13% RR 1.48 95% CI 1.12-1.95, p=0.023), assessment by 10 weeks gestation (24% versus 8% RR 1.61 95% CI 1.24-2.10, p=0.008), shorter postnatal stay (1 day versus 3 days SD 1.2 versus 2.2, p=<0.001), and know their midwife (90% versus 8% RR 8.98 95% CI 4.97-16.2, p=<0.001). More women in the caseload group were referred to multidisciplinary support services; psychiatry (56% versus 19% RR 2.06 95% CI 1.59-2.65, p=<0.001), domestic violence advocacy (42% versus 18% RR 1.68 CI 1.31-2.15, p=<0.001) and other services (56% versus 31% RR 1.58 95% CI 1.15-2.16, p=0.03). They were less likely to have a caesarean section (11% versus 33% RR 0.26 95% CI 0.12-0.55, P=<0.001), an epidural/spinal for pain relief (35% versus 56%, RR 0.64 95% CI 0.46-0.86, p=0.004), give birth on the labour ward (70% versus 88% RR 0.63 95% CI 0.49-0.83, p=0.006), and had fewer antenatal admissions (0.9(SD 1.1) versus 1.3(SD1.5), p=0.036) and neonatal unit admissions (4% versus 18%, RR 0.35 95% CI 0.15-0.85, p=0.005). CONCLUSION: caseload midwifery care appeared to confer increased benefit and reduced harmful outcomes. Findings for individual outcomes differed from previous literature depending on outcome, suggesting caseload care may affect women in different ways depending on their individual needs.