↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review to examine the evidence regarding discussions by midwives, with women, around their options for where to give birth

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review to examine the evidence regarding discussions by midwives, with women, around their options for where to give birth
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-0832-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Henshall, Beck Taylor, Sara Kenyon

Abstract

Discussion of place of birth is important for women and maternity services, yet the detail, content and delivery of these discussions are unclear. The Birthplace Study found that for low risk, multiparous women, there was no significant difference in neonatal safety outcomes between women giving birth in obstetric units, midwifery-led units, or home. For low risk, nulliparous women giving birth in a midwifery-led unit was as safe as in hospital, whilst birth at home was associated with a small, increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Intervention rates were reduced in all settings outside hospital. NICE guidelines recommend all women are supported in their choice of birth setting. Midwives have the opportunity to provide information to women about where they choose to give birth. However, research suggests women are sometimes unaware of all the options available. This systematic review will establish what is known about midwives' perspectives of discussions with women about their options for where to give birth and whether any interventions have been implemented to support these discussions. The systematic review was PROSPERO registered (registration number: CRD42015017334). The PRISMA statement was followed. Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Popline and EMBASE databases were searched between 2000-March 2015 and grey literature was searched. All identified studies were screened for inclusion. Qualitative data was thematically analysed, whilst quantitative data was summarised. The themes identified relating to influences on midwives' place of birth discussions with women were organisational pressures and professional norms, inadequate knowledge and confidence of midwives, variation in what midwives told women and the influence of colleagues. None of the interventions identified provided sufficient evidence of effectiveness and were of poor quality. The review has suggested the need for a pragmatic, understandable place of birth dialogue containing standard content to ensure midwives provide low risk women with adequate information about their place of birth options and the need to improve midwives knowledge about place of birth. A more robust, systematic evaluation of any interventions designed is required to improve the quality of place of birth discussions. By engaging with co-produced research, more effective interventions can be designed, implemented and sustained.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Unknown 139 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 9 6%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 48 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 44 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 18%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 51 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2019.
All research outputs
#3,918,082
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,061
of 4,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,210
of 299,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#22
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.