Cited by 75

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Rayment‐Jones, Hannah, Harris, James, Harden, Angela, Khan, Zahra, Sandall, Jane·2019·Birth

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/birt.12446

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 PRISMA Flow diagram
Figure 1 PRISMA Flow diagramCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001100 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Draper E, 2017, MBRRACE‐UK 2017 Perinatal Confidential Enquiry: Term, Singleton, Intrapartum Stillbirth and Intrapartum‐related Neonatal Death
  3. Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE), 2011, Saving mothers’ lives: reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer: 2006–08. The eighth report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in the United Kingdom, BJOG, 118, 1
  4. 10.1111/1471-0528.13059 · DOI
  5. 10.1136/bmj.b4702 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.012 · DOI
  7. Redshaw M, 2014, Listening to Parents After Stillbirth or the Death of Their Baby After Birth
  8. Ki‐Moon B, 2010, Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health
  9. NHS England, 2016, National Maternity Review. Better Births; Improving Outcomes of Maternity Services in England
  10. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6 · DOI
  11. 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300723 · DOI
  12. World Health Organization, 2014, Social Determinants of Mental Health
  13. 10.1111/1471-0528.13978 · DOI
  14. London Maternity Clinical Network (LMCN).London Maternal Deaths. A 2015 Review.London UK:NHS;2016.
  15. 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30183-8 · DOI
  16. Department of Health, 2012, The Mandate: A Mandate from the Government to the NHS Commissioning Board: April 2013 to March 2015
  17. 10.1371/journal.pone.0138116 · DOI
  18. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2010, Pregnancy and Complex Social Factors: A Model for Service Provision for Pregnant Women with Complex Social Factors
  19. Care Quality Commission, (CQC), 2015, Women's Experiences of Maternity Care in England: Key Findings from the 2015 NHS Trust Survey
  20. 10.1186/1471-2393-11-13 · DOI
  21. HollowellJ OakleyL VigursC Barnett‐PageE KavanaghJ OliverS.Increasing the early initiation of antenatal care by Black and Minority Ethnic women in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and mixed methods synthesis of women's views and the literature on intervention effectiveness. Social Science Research Unit Institute of Education University of London. 2012.
  22. 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1016/j.midw.2015.01.003 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.midw.2017.02.009 · DOI
  25. Catling CJ, 2015, Group versus conventional antenatal care for women, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
  26. 10.1186/s40814-018-0361-x · DOI
  27. 10.1111/birt.12361 · DOI
  28. 10.12968/bjom.2013.21.8.571 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.wombi.2017.12.010 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.midw.2013.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1371/journal.pone.0187856 · DOI
  32. 10.1080/10810730.2012.665421 · DOI
  33. 10.1186/s12884-015-0616-y · DOI
  34. 10.12968/bjom.2011.19.1.7 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00684.x · DOI
  36. 10.1111/hex.12629 · DOI
  37. Feldman R, 2013, When maternity doesn't matter: dispersing pregnant women seeking asylum, Reprod Health Matters, 21, 212
  38. HESTIA, 2018, Underground Lives: Pregnancy and Modern Slavery
  39. 10.1016/j.midw.2016.02.017 · DOI
  40. 10.1080/13557858.2012.730608 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.12968/bjom.2016.24.2.130 · DOI
  42. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015526 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.wombi.2018.05.009 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.midw.2014.05.010 · DOI
  45. 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009846 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.030 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1016/j.midw.2015.04.004 · DOI
  48. 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009067 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.midw.2012.01.002 · DOI · Paper page
  50. QSR International Pty Ltd, 2014, NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software
  51. 10.4135/9781473913820 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Merton RK, 1968, Social Theory and Social Structure, 39
  53. 10.1177/1609406917741796 · DOI
  54. 10.1007/s10903-017-0570-z · DOI
  55. 10.1136/jech-2017-209348 · DOI
  56. 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300750 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00142-9 · DOI
  58. 10.5172/hesr.451.17.2.177 · DOI
  59. 10.1186/1471-2393-13-103 · DOI
  60. 10.3399/bjgp15X686893 · DOI
  61. 10.1016/S0140-6736(71)92410-X · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rayment‐Jones, H., Harris, J., Harden, A., Khan, Z., & Sandall, J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Science, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine North Wing St. Thomas' Hospital, King's College London London UK
  • Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Wing, University College Hospital London UK
  • Institute for Health and Human Development, University of East London London UK
  • Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care King's College London London UK
Venue
Birth
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-08-05
Volume
46
Issue
3
Pages
461-474
ISSN
  • 0730-7659
  • 1523-536X
Cited by
75
References
2
Language
en
Funders
National Institute for Health Research (2017-10-033)

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