Models for Midwifery Care: A Mapping Review

Abstract

Objective: According to World Health Organitaion, midwives are found competent to provide evidence-based and normalcy-facilitating maternity care. Models for midwifery care exist but seem to be lacking explicit epistemological status, mainly focusing on the practical and organizational level of care delivery. To make the values and attitudes of care visible, it is important to implement care models with explicit epistemological status. The aim of this paper is to identify and gain an overview of publications of theoretical models for midwifery care. Methods: A mapping review was conducted with systematic searches in nine databases for studies describing a theoretical model or theory for midwifery care that either did or was intended to impact clinical practice. Eligibility criteria were refined during the selection process. Results: Six models from six papers originating from different parts of the world were included in the study. The included models were developed using different methodologies and had different philosophical underpinnings and complexity gradients. Some characteristics were common, the most distinctive being the emphasis of the midwife–woman relationship, secondly the focus on woman-centeredness, and thirdly the salutogenic focus in care. Conclusion: Overall, scarcity exists regarding theoretical models for midwifery care with explicit epistemological status. Further research is needed in order to develop generic theoretical models with an epistemological status to serve as a knowledge base for midwifery healthcare.

Keywords

• Maternity care midwifery models for care philosophy salutogenesis woman centeredness

Ebelik Bakımı İçin Modeller: Bir Haritalama Derlemesi

Abstract

Amaç: Dünya Sağlık Örgütü’ne göre, ebeler kanıta dayalı annelik bakımını sağlayan kişilerdir. Ebeler bu bakımda normalliği kolaylaştırma konusunda yetkindirler. Ebelerin bakım uygulamalarını yansıtan bazı teorik modeller mevcuttur. Ancak bu modellerin esas olarak doğuma yönelik bakım ve örgütsel yapıya dair olduğu gözlemlenmektedir. Bu modeler epistemolojik (bilgi felsefesi) olarak yoksun görünmektedir. Bakımın değerli olduğunu ve bakım yaklaşımlarını görünür hale getirebilmek için modellerin epistemolojiye sahip olması gerekebilir. Bu yazının amacı, ebelik bakımında var olan teorik modeller hakkındaki yayınları belirlemek ve bunlara genel bir bakış sağlamaktır. Yöntemler: Bu bir haritalama derleme çalışmasıdır. Klinik uygulamayı etkileyen ya da etkilemeyi amaçlayan ebelik bakımına ulaşabilmek için dokuz veri tabanında sistematik olarak taranmıştır. Bu tarama teorik bir modeli ya da teoriyi tanımlayan çalışmaları kapsamıştır. Uygunluk kriterleri seçim sürecinde netleştirilmiştir. Bulgular: Dünyanın farklı bölgelerinde yapılan altı makalede yer alan altı model çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Dahil edilen modeller, farklı metodolojiler (yöntem) kullanılarak geliştirilmiştir. Bu modeller farklı felsefi temellere ve bazı karmaşıklığa sahiptir. Bu modellerin bazı özellikleri birbirine benzerdir. Bu modellerin en ayırt edici birinci özelliği ebe-kadın ilişkisine, ikincisi kadın-merkezli olmaya ve üçüncüsü de bakımda salutojene (sağlığın nedenlerine odaklanma) vurgu yapmıştır. Sonuç: Genel olarak, belirli epistemolojik statüye sahip ebelik bakımının teorik modelleri hakkında yetersizlik mevcuttur. Ebelik bakımının bilgi tabanlı görev yapması için, epistemolojik açıdan kapsamlı teorik modeller geliştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu nedenle daha fazla araştırmaya gereksinim bulunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Ebelik
• salutojen
• felsefe
• intrapartum bakım
• bakım için modeller
• kadın merkezlilik

References

1. Benoit, C., Wrede, S., Bourgeault, I., Sandall, J., De Vries, R., & van Teijlingen, E. R. (2005). Understanding the social organisation of maternity care systems: Midwifery as a touchstone. Sociology of Health and Illness, 27(6), 722–737. [CrossRef]
2. Berg, M. (2005). A midwifery model of care for childbearing women at high risk: Genuine caring in caring for the genuine. Journal of Perinatal Education, 14(1), 9–21. [CrossRef]
3. Berg, M., Asta Ólafsdóttir, O., & Lundgren, I. (2012). A midwifery model of woman-centred childbirth care – In Swedish and Icelandic settings. Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, 3(2), 79–87. [CrossRef]
4. Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Sage.
5. Bryar, R. M., & Sinclair, M. (Eds) (2011). Theory for midwifery practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Bryar, R., & Sinclair, M. (2011). Midwifery theory development. In R. Bryar & M. Sinclair (Eds.). Theory for midwifery practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Carolan, M., & Hodnett, E. (2007). ‘With woman’ philosophy: Examining the evidence, ansering the questions. Nursing Inquiry, 14(2), 140–152.[CrossRef]
8. Ceschia, A., & Horton, R. (2016). Maternal health: Time for a radical reappraisal. Lancet, 388(10056), 2064–2066. [CrossRef]

9. Church, S., Frith, L., Balaam, M. C., Berg, M., Smith, V., van der Walt, C., & van Teijlingen, E. (2017). New thinking on improving maternity care: International perspectives. Pinter & Martin.
10. Comaroff, J. (1977). Conflicting paradigms of pregnancy: Managing ambiguity in antenatal encounters. In A. Davis & B. Horobin (Eds.). Medical encounters: The experience of illness and treatment. Croom Helm.
11. Conrad, P. (2020). The Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders. Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007. https://ebookcentral proqu est-c om.ez proxy .hioa.no/l ib/hi oa/de tail. action?docID=3318347.
12. Cragin, L. (2004). The theoretical basis for nurse-midwifery practice in the United States: A critical analysis of three theories. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, 49(5), 381–389. [CrossRef]
13. Davis-Floyd, R. (2001). The technocratic, humanistic, and holistic paradigms of childbirth. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 75(Suppl.), S5–S23. [CrossRef]
14. De Vries, R., Nieuwenhuijze, M., Buitendijk, S. E., & Members of Midwifery Science Work Group (2013). What does it take to have a strong and independent profession of midwifery? Lessons from the Netherlands. Midwifery, 29(10), 1122–1128. [CrossRef]
15. Fleming, V. E. (1998). Women-with-midwives: A model of interdependence. Midwifery, 14(3), 137–143. [CrossRef]
16. Fontein-Kuipers, Y., de Groot, R., & van Staa, A. (2018). Woman centered care 2.0: Bringing the concept into focus. European Journal of Midwifery, 2(May), 5. [CrossRef]
17. Gottfredsdottir, H., Nieuwenhuijze, M., & Frith, L. (2017). Fetal screening in three countries for a complexity theory perspective. In S. Church, L. Frith, M. C. Balaam, et al. (Eds.). New thinking on maternity care: International perspectives. Pinter & Martin.
18. Gough, D. A., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage.
19. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. [CrossRef]
20. Halldorsdottir, S., & Karlsdottir, S. I. (2011). The primacy of the good midwife in midwifery services: An evolving theory of professionalism in midwifery. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25(4), 806–817. [CrossRef]
21. International Confederation of Midwives (2020). Philosophy and model of MidwiferyCare. https ://ww w.int ernat ional midwi ves.o rg/as sets/ files /defi nitio nsfil es/20 18/06 /eng- philo sophy -and- model -ofmi dwifery-ca re.pd f. Published 2014.
22. Kannampallil, T. G., Schauer, G. F., Cohen, T., & Patel, V. L. (2011). Considering complexity in healthcare systems. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 44(6), 943–947. [CrossRef]
23. Kennedy, H. P. (2000). A model of exemplary midwifery practice: Results of a delphi study. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, 45(1), 4–19. [CrossRef]
24. Kennedy, H. P., Cheyney, M., Dahlen, H. G., Downe, S., Foureur, M. J., Homer, C. S. E., Jefford, E., McFadden, A., Michel-Schuldt, M., Sandall, J., Soltani, H., Speciale, A. M., Stevens, J., Vedam, S., & Renfrew, M. J. (2018). Asking different questions: A call to action for research to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child. Birth, 45(3), 222–231. [CrossRef]
25. Leap, N. (2009). Woman-centred or women-centred care: Does it matter? British Journal of Midwifery, 17(1), 12–16. [CrossRef]
26. Lindstrom, B., Berg, M., Meier Magistretti, C., Perez-Botella, M., & Downe, S. (2017). The salutogenic approach to maternity care: From theory to practice and research. In S. Church, L. Frith, M. C. Balaam, et al. (Eds), New perspectives on improving maternity care: International perspectives. Pinter & Martin.
27. Lundgren, I., & Berg, M. (2007). Central concepts in the midwife woman relationship. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 21(2), 220–228. [CrossRef]
28. MacKenzie Bryers, H., & van Teijlingen, E. (2010). Risk, theory, social and medical models: A critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care. Midwifery, 26(5), 488–496. [CrossRef]
29. Maputle, M. S. (2010). A woman-centred childbirth model. Health SA Gesondheid, 15(1), 28–35. [CrossRef]
30. Maputle, M. S., & Hiss, D. (2013). Woman-centred care in childbirth: A concept analysis (Part 1): original research. Curationis, 36(1), 1–8. [CrossRef]
31. Miller, S., Abalos, E., Chamillard, M., Ciappon, A., Colaci, D., Comande, D., Diaz, V., Geller, S., Hanson, C., Langer, A., Manuelli, V., Millar, K., Morhason- Bello, I., Castro, C. P., Vicky Nogueira Pileggi’nin fotoğrafı, Robinson, N., Kaykaycı, M., Paulo Souza, J., Vogel, J. S., & Althabe, F. (2016). Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. The Lancet, 388(10056), 2176–2192. [CrossRef]
32. Nieuwenhuijze, M., Downe, S., Gottfreðsdóttir, H., Rijnders, M., Du Preez, A., & Vaz Rebelo, P. (2015). Taxonomy for complexity theory in the context of maternity care. Midwifery, 31(9), 834–843. [CrossRef]
33. Noblit, G., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage.
34. Nove, A., Hoope-Bender, P. T., Moyo, N. T., & Bokosi, M. (2018). The Midwifery services framework: What is it, and why is it needed? Midwifery, 57, 54–58. [CrossRef]
35. Peters, M., Kolip, P., & Schäfers, R. (2020). A theory of the aims and objectives of midwifery practice: A theory synthesis. Midwifery, 84, 102653. [CrossRef]
36. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing Research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th edn). Wolters Kluwer.
37. Renfrew, M. J., McFadden, A., Bastos, M. H., Campbell, J., Channon, A. A., Cheung, N. F., Silva, D. R., Downe, S., Kennedy, H. P., Malata, A., McCormick, F., Wick, L., & Declercq, E. (2014). Midwifery and quality care: Findings from a new evidence informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet, 384(9948), 1129–1145. [CrossRef]
38. Sandall, J., Soltani, H., Gates, S., Shennan, A., & Devane, D. (2016). Midwifeled continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4(4), CD004667. [CrossRef]
39. Shahhosseini, Z., Gardeshi, Z. H., Valukolaee, M. H., & Khermandichali, F. Y. (2017). 166: Contınuous Mıdwıfery led care compared to other models: An Evıdence based journal club (vol. 7, no. Suppl 1). BMJ Publishing Group. [CrossRef]
40. Sturmberg, J. P. (2018). Embracing complexity in health and health care—Translating a way of thinking into a way of acting. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24(3), 598–599. [CrossRef]
41. Sturmberg, J. P., & Martin, C. M. (2009). Complexity and health – Yesterday’s traditions, tomorrow’s future. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15(3), 543–548. [CrossRef]
42. Symon, A., Pringle, J., Cheyne, H., Downe, S., Hundley, V., Lee, E., Lynn, F., McFadden, A., McNeill, J., Renfrew, M. J., Ross-Davie, M., van Teijlingen, E., Whitford, H., & Alderdice, F. (2016). Midwiferyled antenatal care models: Mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16(1), 168. [CrossRef]
43. ten Hoope-Bender, P., de Bernis, L., Campbell, J., Downe, S., Fauveau, V., Fogstad, H., Homer, C. S., Kennedy, H. P., Matthews, Z., McFadden, A., Renfrew, M. J., & Van Lerberghe, W. (2014). Improvement of maternal and newborn health through midwifery. Lancet, 384(9949), 1226–1235. [CrossRef]
44. van Teijlingen, E., Wrede, S., Benoit, C., Sandall, J., & DeVries, R. (2008). Born in the USA: Exceptionalism in maternity care organisation among high-income countries. Sociological Research Online, 14(1), 52. [CrossRef]
45. Vermeulen, J., Luyben, A., O’Connell, R., Gillen, P., Escuriet, R., & Fleming, V. (2019). Failure or progress?: The current state of the professionalisation of midwifery in Europe. European Journal of Midwifery, 3(December), 22. [CrossRef]
46. Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2019). Strategies for theory construction in nursing. Pearson.
47. Walsh, D. (2008). Promoting normal birth: Weighing the evidence. In S. Downe (Ed.). Normal childbirth - Evidence and debate. Churchill Livingstone.
48. World Health Organization (2020). WHO recommendations: Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experiences. https ://ww w.who .int/ publicatio ns/i/ item/9789241550215. Published July 9, 2018.