Cited by 15Maternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareNursing education and management

Community midwives views of postnatal care in the UK; A descriptive qualitative study

Open access
Kokab, Farina, Jones, Eleanor, Goodwin, Laura, Taylor, Beck, Kenyon, Sara·2022·Midwifery

Abstract

Objective To explore views and experiences of community midwives delivering postnatal care.Design A descriptive qualitative study design undertaking focus groups with community midwives and community midwifery team leaders.Setting All focus groups were carried out in community midwifery care settings, across four hospitals in two NHS organisations, April to June 2018 in the West Midlands, UK.Participants 47 midwives: 34 community midwives and 13 community midwifery team leaders took part in 7 focus groups.Findings Inductive framework analysis of data led to the development of themes and sub-themes relating to factors influencing discharge from hospital, strategies to address increases in discharge and the broader challenges to providing care. Conditions on the postnatal ward and women's experiences of care in the hospital were factors influencing timing of discharge from hospital that resulted in community midwives managing women and babies with more complex needs. In order to manage increased workloads, there was growing but varied use of flexible approaches to providing care such as telephone consultations, postnatal clinics, and maternity support workers.Key conclusions and implications for practice In a context of short postnatal hospital stays, community midwives appear to be responding to women's needs and service pressures in the postnatal period. Wider implementation of specific strategies to organise and deliver support to women and babies may further improve care and outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.midw.2021.103183

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kokab, F., Jones, E., Goodwin, L., Taylor, B., & Kenyon, S.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Kokab, Farina
Venue
Midwifery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-01
Volume
104
Pages
103183
ISSN
0266-6138 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3206271973
Cited by
15
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Midwifery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
Keywords
community midwives, postpartum care, midwives' perceptions, hospital discharge timing, midwife workload, telephone consultation, women's experiences of care
MeSH terms
Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Midwifery, Postnatal Care, Pregnancy, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review