Public health interventions in midwifery: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Background: Maternity care providers, particularly midwives, have a window of opportunity to influence pregnant women about positive health choices. This aim of this paper is to identify evidence of effective public health interventions from good quality systematic reviews that could be conducted by midwives.

Methods: Relevant databases including MEDLINE, Pubmed, EBSCO, CRD, MIDIRS, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and Econlit were searched to identify systematic reviews in October 2010. Quality assessment of all reviews was conducted.

Results: Thirty-six good quality systematic reviews were identified which reported on effective interventions. The reviews were conducted on a diverse range of interventions across the reproductive continuum and were categorised under: screening; supplementation; support; education; mental health; birthing environment; clinical care in labour and breast feeding. The scope and strength of the review findings are discussed in relation to current practice. A logic model was developed to provide an overarching framework of midwifery public health roles to inform research policy and practice.

Conclusions: This review provides a broad scope of high quality systematic review evidence and definitively highlights the challenge of knowledge transfer from research into practice. The review also identified gaps in knowledge around the impact of core midwifery practice on public health outcomes and the value of this contribution. This review provides evidence for researchers and funders as to the gaps in current knowledge and should be used to inform the strategic direction of the role of midwifery in public health in policy and practice.

A systematic review of systematic reviews to improve maternal mental health and well-being

Objective: to identify non-invasive interventions in the perinatal period that could enable midwives to offer effective support to women within the area of maternal mental health and well-being.

Methods: a total of 9 databases were searched: MEDLINE, PubMed, EBSCO (CINAHL/British Nursing Index), MIDIRS Online Database, Web of Science, The Cochrane library, CRD (NHS EED/DARE/HTA), Joanne Briggs Institute and EconLit. A systematic search strategy was formulated using key MeSH terms and related text words for midwifery, study aim, study design and mental health. Inclusion criteria were articles published from 1999 onwards, English language publications and articles originating from economically developed countries, indicated by membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Data were independently extracted using a data collection form, which recorded data on the number of papers reviewed, time frame of the review, objectives, key findings and recommendations. Summary data tables were set up outlining key data for each study and findings were organised into related groups. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed based on predefined quality assessment criteria for reviews.

Findings: 32 reviews were identified as examining interventions that could be used or co-ordinated by midwives in relation to some aspect of maternal mental health and well-being from the antenatal to the postnatal period and met the inclusion criteria. The review highlighted that based on current systematic review evidence it would be premature to consider introducing any of the identified interventions into midwifery training or practice. However there were a number of examples of possible interventions worthy of further research including midwifery led models of care in the prevention of postpartum depression, psychological and psychosocial interventions for treating postpartum depression and facilitation/co-ordination of parent-training programmes. No reviews were identified that supported a specific midwifery role in maternal mental health and well-being in pregnancy, and yet, this is the point of most intensive contact.

Key conclusions and implications for practice: This systematic review of systematic reviews provides a valuable overview of the current strengths and gaps in relation to maternal mental health interventions in the perinatal period. While there was little evidence identified to inform the current role of midwives in maternal mental health, the review provides the opportunity to reflect on what is achievable by midwives now and in the future and the need for high quality randomised controlled trials to inform a strategic approach to promoting maternal mental health in midwifery.

Outcome Measures in Glaucoma:A Systematic Review of Cochrane Reviews and Protocols

In clinical trials, the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial for the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. Selection of inappropriate outcomes can compromise the utility of a trial. However, the process of selecting the most suitable outcomes to include can be complex. Ideally, glaucoma trials aim to evaluate important outcomes for clinicians and patients. A high variability in the selection of outcomes suggests that there is no consensus on how best to evaluate the effect of glaucoma interventions. Further, it makes evidence synthesis difficult. The purpose of this review is to determine the extent of clinical outcome measures used in published glaucoma Cochrane Reviews and Protocols.

What Are the Effects of Teaching Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC)? Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background

An evidence-based approach to health care is recognized internationally as a key competency for healthcare practitioners. This overview systematically evaluated and organized evidence from systematic reviews on teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC).

Methods/Findings

We searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for teaching EBHC to health professionals compared to no intervention or different strategies. Outcomes covered EBHC knowledge, skills, attitudes, practices and health outcomes. Comprehensive searches were conducted in April 2013. Two reviewers independently selected eligible reviews, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. We included 16 systematic reviews, published between 1993 and 2013. There was considerable overlap across reviews. We found that 171 source studies included in the reviews related to 81 separate studies, of which 37 are in more than one review. Studies used various methodologies to evaluate educational interventions of varying content, format and duration in undergraduates, interns, residents and practicing health professionals. The evidence in the reviews showed that multifaceted, clinically integrated interventions, with assessment, led to improvements in knowledge, skills and attitudes. Interventions improved critical appraisal skills and integration of results into decisions, and improved knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour amongst practicing health professionals. Considering single interventions, EBHC knowledge and attitude were similar for lecture-based versus online teaching. Journal clubs appeared to increase clinical epidemiology and biostatistics knowledge and reading behavior, but not appraisal skills. EBHC courses improved appraisal skills and knowledge. Amongst practicing health professionals, interactive online courses with guided critical appraisal showed significant increase in knowledge and appraisal skills. A short workshop using problem-based approaches, compared to no intervention, increased knowledge but not appraisal skills.

Conclusions

EBHC teaching and learning strategies should focus on implementing multifaceted, clinically integrated approaches with assessment. Future rigorous research should evaluate minimum components for multifaceted interventions, assessment of medium to long-term outcomes, and implementation of these interventions.