Interprofessional cooperation by midwives in the field of out-of-hospital obstetrical care: an integrative review / Interprofessionelle Kooperation von Hebammen im Handlungsfeld der ambulanten geburtshilflichen Versorgung: ein integratives Review

Schlüter-Cruse, Martina; Schnepp, Wilfried; Sayn-Wittgenstein, Friederike zu

doi:10.1515/ijhp-2016-0025

Figures & Tables

PRISMA flow chart illustrating the exclusion process

Details and critique of the qualitative papers included in the thematic analysis

Authors, year, country	Research aim	Sample	Methods	Quality score (CASP, 2013)
Barimani & Hylander (2008), Sweden	Exploring health care professionals’ experience of cooperation in the chain of care between antenatal care, postpartum care and child health care	n=32 19 midwives 13 child health care nurses	Focus groups, individual interviews	9
Barimani & Hylander (2012), Sweden	Investigating strategies for continuity of care for expectant and new mothers	n=41 9 midwives 11 child health care nurses 21 mothers	Interviews, participant observation, document analysis	9
Edvardsson et al. (2011), Sweden	Exploring facilitators, barriers and requirements for programme sustainability two years after finalizing implementation of a multisectoral child health promotion programme	n=23 5 midwives 7 child health nurses 7 dental nurses 4 pre-school teachers	Face-to-face interviews	10
Homer et al. (2009), Australia	Describing current approaches to transitions of care from midwives to child and family health nurses; Understanding the barriers and facilitators to effective transition of care	n=67 19 midwifery managers 14 midwifery consultants, community midwives 12 child and family health nurse managers 13 child and family health nurse consultants 4 family coordinators 5 others	Questionnaire with a series of open-end questions	10
Miers & Pollard (2009), United Kingdom	Exploring non-medical health and social care professionals’ views on the abilities they need to collaborate	n=34 13 nurses 4 midwives 5 physiotherapists 7 social workers 4 occupational therapists	Face-to-face and telephone interviews	5
Munro, Kornelsen, & Grzybowski (2013), Canada	Exploring barriers to and facilitators of interprofessional models of maternity care between physicians, nurses and midwives in rural British Columbia	n=73 7 midwives 27 physicians 18 nurses 5 community-based providers 5 birthing women 5 administrators 6 decision makers	In depth-interviews, focus group	10
Murray-Davis, Marshall, & Gordon (2011), United Kingdom	Understanding midwives’ perceptions regarding interprofessional working and learning and its relevance to midwifery care	n=39 11 heads of midwifery 16 midwifery educators 12 newly qualified midwives	Interviews, focus groups	9
Peterson, Medves, Davies, & Graham (2007), Canada	Describing care providers’ attitudes towards multidisciplinary maternity care and facilitators of and barriers to collaborative maternity care	n=25 participants from national care provider associations: 4 Association of Family Physicians 5 Association of Midwives 3 Nurses Association 4 Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 4 Society of Rural Physicians 5 Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses	Telephone interviews	8
Pollard (2011), United Kingdom	Exploring how midwives’ discursive practices relate to the status quo and how they contribute either to maintaining or challenging traditional discourses	n=32 (interviews) 20 midwives 4 obstetricians 8 women n=88 (observation) 32 midwives 4 administrative staff 27 medical staff 5 students 10 auxiliaries 6 other hospital staff 4 women	Interviews, observation	9
Psaila, Fowler, Kruske,& Schmied (2014), Australia	Describing innovations developed to improve transition of care between maternity and child and family health services at seven sites across four Australian states; Identifying the characteristics common to all innovations	n=33 midwives, managers, child and family health nurses, GP’s, support workers, allied health staff, Aboriginal health workers, community health professionals number of each profession not stated	Face-to-face and telephone interviews, focus groups	9
Schmied et al., (2015), Australia	Exploring professionals perceptions’ of the challenges and opportunities in implementing a national approach to universal child and family health services across Australia	n=161 60 child and family health nurses 45 midwives 15 GP’s 12 practice nurses 14 allied health professionals 7 childhood specialists 6 staff from non-government organisations 2 government advisors	Focus groups via telephone conference and face-to-face, discussion groups at national conferences, videoconference, teleconference, e-conversation, one-to-one interviews	10
Schölmerich et al. (2014), Netherlands	Exploring factors that make it challenging to achieve coordination in Dutch midwifery and obstetrics	n=40 13 community midwives 8 hospital-based-midwives 19 obstetricians	Semi-structured interviews, non-participatory observation	10
While, Murgatroyd, Ullman, & Forbes (2006), United Kingdom	Exploring nurses’, midwives’ and health visitors’ experiences of cross-boundary working	n=113 16 midwives 66 nurses 14 health visitors 3 GP’s 4 social workers 2 Sure Start workers 3 service users 5 others	World café focus group method	5

Details and critique of the mixed-methods papers included in the thematic analysis

Authors, year, country	Research aim	Sample	Methods	Critique – Strategic questions to trigger critical thinking (Aveyard, Sharp, & Wooliams, 2011)
Psaila, Schmied, Fowler, & Kruske (2015), Australia	Examine collaboration in the provision of universal health services for children and families in Australia	Phase 1: n=105 45 midwives 60 child and family health nurses Phase 2: n=l,753 655 midwives 1098 child and family health nurses	Phase 1: Discussion groups, focus groups, teleconferences Phase 2: Online survey	Meets criteria ◼ Clear purpose and background ◼ Appropriate methods ◼ Methods of data analysis described and justified ◼ Conclusion reflects the findings
Shaw (2013), United Kingdom	Exploring midwives’, general practioners’ and maternity services planers’ views of collaborative working in the community	Questionnaire: 10 community midwives, senior partners from 20 GP practices exact number notstatedInterviews (n=5): 6 participants profession notspecifiedProfessional forum: midwives, GP’s, midwifery advisor, representatives from Public Health Agency number of eachprofession notspecified	Questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, professional forum	Meets criteria with restrictions ◼ Clear purpose and background ◼ Appropriate methods ◼ Sample not adequately described ◼ Data collection and analysis strategy of professional forum not adequately described ◼ Findings cannot be generalised ◼ Conclusion reflects the findings

The contribution of each paper to the thematic analysis

Details and critique of the quantitative papers included in the thematic analysis

Authors, year, country	Research aim	Sample	Methods	Critique – Framework according to Caldwell, Henshaw, & Taylor (2011)
Ayerle, Mattern, & Fleischer (2014), Germany	Collecting data on freelance midwives’ knowledge and attitudes regarding early prevention in Saxony- Anhalt	42 community midwives	Online survey based on questionnaire	Meets criteria with restrictions ◼ Aim of study clearly stated ◼ Study design clearly identified ◼ Population identified ◼ Sample size not representative ◼ Data collection instruments appropriate to study aims ◼ Method of data analysis described and justified ◼ Results appropriate and clear ◼ Comprehensive discussion and conclusion
Clancy, Gressnes, & Svensson (2013), Norway	Examining collaboration issues relating to public health nursing in different-sized Norwegian municipalities	n=l,596849 public health nurses113 doctors519 child protection workers115 midwives	Cross-sectional online survey based on questionnaire	Meets criteria ◼ Aim of study clearly stated ◼ Study design clearly identified ◼ Population identified ◼ Sample adequately described ◼ Data collection instruments appropriate to study aims ◼ Method of data analysis described and justified ◼ Results appropriate and clear ◼ Comprehensive discussion and conclusion
Edvardsson et al. (2012), Sweden	Examining the outcomes of a child health promotion programme on professionals’ self-reported health promotion practices and to investigate perceived facilitators and barriers for programme implementation	Survey 1:Pre-implementation:n=13430 midwives80 nurses24 pre-schoolteachersPost-implementation:n=10922 midwives67 nurses20 pre-schoolteachersSurvey 2:Occasion 1: n=142midwives, nurses,pre-school teachersOccasion 2: n=98midwives, nurses,pre-school teachersnumber of eachprofession not statedin survey 2	Two surveys based on questionnaireSurvey 1: Onlinesurvey (before-and after design)Survey 2:Quantitativesurvey withqualitativeelements carriedout betweenseminars	Meets criteria ◼ Aim of study clearly stated ◼ Study design clearly identified ◼ Population identified ◼ Sample adequately described ◼ Data collection instruments appropriate to study aims ◼ Method of data analysis described and justified ◼ Results appropriate and clear ◼ Comprehensive discussion and conclusion
Fontein-Kuipers, Bude, Ausems, Vries, & Nieuwenhuijze (2014), Netherlands	Exploring the behavioural intentions of antenatal management of maternal distress and examine the factors that influence those intentions	112 midwives based in the community	Exploratory online survey based on questionnaire	Meets criteria ◼ Aim of study clearly stated ◼ Study design clearly identified ◼ Population identified ◼ Sample adequately described ◼ Data collection instruments appropriate to study aims ◼ Method of data analysis described and justified ◼ Results appropriate and clear ◼ Comprehensive discussion and conclusion
Nagel-Brotzler, Bronner, Hornstein, & Albani (2005), Germany	Investigating midwives’ experience, knowledge and multiprofessional cooperation in the context of psychic disturbances in early motherhood	111 midwives	Telephone survey or personal questioning based on a questionnaire or participants completed a questionnaire	Meets criteria with restrictions ◼ Aim of study clearly stated ◼ Study design clearly identified ◼ Population identified ◼ Sample size not representative ◼ Data collection instruments appropriate to study aims ◼ Method of data analysis described and justified ◼ Results appropriate and clear ◼ Comprehensive discussion and conclusion
Psaila, Kruske, Fowler, Homer, & Schmied (2014), Australia	Exploring the transition of care between maternity services to child and family health services	n=l,753 655 midwives 1098 child and family health nurses	Quantitative online and mail survey with qualitative elements based on questionnaire	Meets criteria ◼ Aim of study clearly stated ◼ Study design clearly identified ◼ Population identified ◼ Sample adequately described ◼ Data collection instruments appropriate to study aims ◼ Method of data analysis described and justified ◼ Results appropriate and clear ◼ Comprehensive discussion and conclusion
Ratti, Ross, Stephanson, & Williamson (2014), Canada	Identifying barriers and effective working relationship between physicians and midwives, find ways to improve the quality of professional interactions	n=144 25 midwives 73 family physicians 46 obstetricians	Mail survey based on questionnaire	Meets criteria with restrictions ◼ Aim of study clearly stated ◼ Study design clearly identified ◼ Population identified ◼ Sample adequately described ◼ Method of data collection not validated ◼ Method of data analysis described and justified ◼ Results appropriate and clear ◼ Comprehensive discussion and conclusion
Skinner & Foureur (2010), New Zealand	Describing midwives’ obstetric consultation and referral practices and their perceptions concerning the quality of their professional relationships with obstetricians	311 midwives	Mail survey based on questionnaire	Meets criteria ◼ Aim of study clearly stated ◼ Study design clearly identified ◼ Population identified ◼ Sample adequately described ◼ Data collection instruments appropriate to ◼ study aims ◼ Method of data analysis described and justified ◼ Results appropriate and clear ◼ Comprehensive discussion and conclusion
Smith et al. (2009), Canada	Eliciting care providers’ opinions regarding seven proposed models of maternity care, barriers to collaborative interprofessional practice and factors that would encourage the practice of intrapartum care	n=l,167 258 midwives 414 obstetricians 495 family physicians own calculations, because in the study response rate is calculated in percent	Mail survey based on questionnaire	Meets criteria with restrictions ◼ Aim of study clearly stated ◼ Study design clearly identified ◼ Population identified ◼ Sample size not adequately described ◼ Data collection instruments appropriate to study aims Method of data analysis described and justified ◼ Results appropriate and clear ◼ Comprehensive discussion and conclusion
Vedam et al. (2012), Canada	Describing educational, practical and personal experiences related to home birth, identify barriers to provision of planned home birth services	n=835 451 midwives 245 obstetricians 139 family physicians	Online survey based on questionnaire	Meets criteria with restrictions ◼ Aim of study clearly stated ◼ Study design clearly identified ◼ Population identified ◼ Sample size of family physicians not representative Data collection instruments appropriate to study aims Method of data analysis described and justified ◼ Results appropriate and clear ◼ Comprehensive discussion and conclusion

Overview of studies excluded from analysis

First author and year 1 The complete references of studies excluded can be requested from the author.	Title	Reason for exclusion
Beldon (2005)	Health promotion in pregnancy: The role of the midwife	Not on topic
Borrow (2011)	Community-based child health nurses: An exploration of current practice	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
Caldwell (2006)	Preparing for practice: How well are practitioners prepared for teamwork	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
Colvin (2013)	A systematic review of qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of task-shifting in midwifery services	Not on topic
Crotty (2012)	Helping and hindering: Perceptions of enablers and barriers to collaboration within a rural South Australian mental health network	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
D’Amour (2005)	The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks	Focus on terminology and conceptual basis
Downe (2010)	Creating a collaborative culture in maternity care	Focus on terminology and conceptual basis
Harris (2012)	Effect of a collaborative interdisciplinary maternity care program on perinatal outcomes	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
Heatley (2011)	Defining collaboration in Australian maternity care	Focus on terminology and conceptual basis
Lane (2006)	The plasticity of professional boundaries: A case study of collaborative care in maternity services	Focus on hospital setting
Larsson (2009)	Professional role and identity in a changing society: Three paradoxes in Swedish midwives’ experiences	Focus on hospital setting
Lavender (2004)	An exploration of midwives’ views of the current system of maternity care in England	Not on topic
Lipp (2008)	A woman centred service in termination of pregnancy: A grounded theory study	Not on topic
Manniën (2012)	Evaluation of primary care midwifery in the Netherlands: Design and rationale of a dynamic cohort study (DELIVER)	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
Mclntyre (2012)	The struggle for contested boundaries in the move to collaborative care teams in Australian maternity care	Not empirical
McKenna (2009)	Health care managers’ perspectives on new nursing and midwifery roles: Perceived impact on patient care and cost effectiveness	Not on topic
Martin (2010)	Developing interdisciplinary maternity services policy in Canada. Evaluation of a consensus workshop	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
Peterson (2013)	Most family physicians work routinely with nurse practitioners, physician assistants, or certified nurse midwives	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
Psaila, Schmied (2014)	Discontinuities between maternity and child and family health services: Health professional’s perceptions	Not on topic
Schmied (2010)	The nature and impact of collaboration and integrated service delivery for pregnant women, children and families	Discursive paper that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area, one study already included (Homer et al., 2009)
Sheehan (2007)	Comparison of language used and patterns of communication in interprofessional and multidisciplinary teams	Focus on terminology and conceptual basis
Smith (2015)	Midwife-physician collaboration: A conceptual framework for interprofessional collaborative practice	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
Stamp (2008)	Aboriginal maternal and infant care workers: Partners in caring for Aboriginal mothers and babies	Not on topic
Stevens (2012)	Description of a successful collaborative birth center practice among midwives and an obstetrician	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
Supper (2015)	Interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: A review of facilitators and barriers perceived by involved actors	Literature review including 44 articles: three studies focus on midwifery: one is out of research period, two met the exclusion criteria
Vedam (2014)	Transfer from planned home birth to hospital: Improving interprofessional collaboration	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
Zwarenstein (2009)	Interprofessional collaboration: Effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes	Publication that does not present the perspective of midwives in its results as a stated focus area
Xyrichis (2008)	What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? A literature review	Literature review including 10 articles: four studies focus on midwifery: three are out of research period, one met the exclusion criteria

Interprofessional cooperation by midwives in the field of out-of-hospital obstetrical care: an integrative review / Interprofessionelle Kooperation von Hebammen im Handlungsfeld der ambulanten geburtshilflichen Versorgung: ein integratives Review

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Details and critique of the qualitative papers included in the thematic analysis

Details and critique of the mixed-methods papers included in the thematic analysis

The contribution of each paper to the thematic analysis

Details and critique of the quantitative papers included in the thematic analysis

Overview of studies excluded from analysis

Paradigm

My account