Facilitators and Barriers to Access to Midwife-Led Birth Settings for Racialized Women in the UK: A Scoping Review.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Anna Melamed, Lucia Rocca-Ihenacho, Anna Horn, Christine McCourt, Frances Rivers, Marina Alice Sylvia Daniele
{"title":"Facilitators and Barriers to Access to Midwife-Led Birth Settings for Racialized Women in the UK: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Anna Melamed, Lucia Rocca-Ihenacho, Anna Horn, Christine McCourt, Frances Rivers, Marina Alice Sylvia Daniele","doi":"10.1111/birt.12897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In UK maternity care, racialized women have worse experiences and clinical outcomes than White women. Midwife-led birth settings (MLBS), including home births and midwife-led units, both freestanding and alongside hospitals, are all available as choices for low-risk women in the UK. MLBS deliver optimal outcomes for low-risk women with uncomplicated pregnancies, including for racialized women, and can offer culturally specific care, possibly mitigating existing social inequalities. Evidence suggests that racialized women access MLBS less than White women.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To map existing literature on facilitators and barriers to accessing MLBS for racialized women and to identify emerging themes.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A scoping review of UK literature over the last 10 years using OVID, Ebsco Host, and gray literature. Search, selection, and data extraction were performed using PRISMA and JBI guidelines. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria, only one addressing the research question directly and others containing some relevant material. Six themes were identified: admission criteria, information giving, the role of antenatal groups, bias and assumptions, beliefs about birth, and MLBS as empowering.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a lack of research on racialized women's access to MLBS. Community outreach, having midwifery services embedded in the community, defaulting to MLBS for women categorized as low risk, continuity of carer, and interventions achieving a reduction in care-giver bias may improve access and outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":55350,"journal":{"name":"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12897","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In UK maternity care, racialized women have worse experiences and clinical outcomes than White women. Midwife-led birth settings (MLBS), including home births and midwife-led units, both freestanding and alongside hospitals, are all available as choices for low-risk women in the UK. MLBS deliver optimal outcomes for low-risk women with uncomplicated pregnancies, including for racialized women, and can offer culturally specific care, possibly mitigating existing social inequalities. Evidence suggests that racialized women access MLBS less than White women.

Aim: To map existing literature on facilitators and barriers to accessing MLBS for racialized women and to identify emerging themes.

Method: A scoping review of UK literature over the last 10 years using OVID, Ebsco Host, and gray literature. Search, selection, and data extraction were performed using PRISMA and JBI guidelines. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria, only one addressing the research question directly and others containing some relevant material. Six themes were identified: admission criteria, information giving, the role of antenatal groups, bias and assumptions, beliefs about birth, and MLBS as empowering.

Conclusions: There is a lack of research on racialized women's access to MLBS. Community outreach, having midwifery services embedded in the community, defaulting to MLBS for women categorized as low risk, continuity of carer, and interventions achieving a reduction in care-giver bias may improve access and outcomes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care is a multidisciplinary, refereed journal devoted to issues and practices in the care of childbearing women, infants, and families. It is written by and for professionals in maternal and neonatal health, nurses, midwives, physicians, public health workers, doulas, social scientists, childbirth educators, lactation counselors, epidemiologists, and other health caregivers and policymakers in perinatal care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信