A Scoping Review Mapping Economic Evaluations of Midwifery Service Provision and the Midwifery Workforce.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Boe Calvert, Caroline S E Homer, Sarah Bar-Zeev, Alicia Ferguson, Vanessa Scarf
{"title":"A Scoping Review Mapping Economic Evaluations of Midwifery Service Provision and the Midwifery Workforce.","authors":"Boe Calvert, Caroline S E Homer, Sarah Bar-Zeev, Alicia Ferguson, Vanessa Scarf","doi":"10.1007/s40258-025-00962-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Midwives are essential in achieving universal health coverage targets and the health targets of the Sustainable Development Goals, yet a significant global shortfall exists in the midwifery workforce. Economic evaluations of midwifery are scarce but can assist in supporting evidence-informed decision-making for sustainable and equitable health care for women and girls.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This review aimed to systematically identify, map and report on available literature regarding economic evaluations conducted on midwifery service provision and the midwifery workforce in all settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and run in six health databases. Peer-reviewed studies and unpublished research theses conducting economic evaluations on midwifery service provision or midwifery workforce strategies were included. Sources were limited to English-language literature published in the past 20 years. Identified sources were screened and reviewed, and data from included sources were extracted, reviewed, mapped and synthesised to report findings. Quality appraisal was conducted on all included sources using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 studies were included in the review. Most were from high-income countries (26/32), and very few were from low- and middle-income countries (6/32). The quality of included studies varied greatly. Under half of the studies conducted full economic evaluations (15/32), and the remainder were partial economic evaluations (17/32). Most studies evaluated midwifery service provision (29/32) through either midwife-led models of care (15/29) or by place of birth (13/29), mostly for low-risk women (23/29) from the perspective of healthcare funders. Evaluation of midwifery education programs was less common, and these were all conducted in low- and middle-income countries (3/32). Most studies concluded that midwifery service provision was cost-saving, cost-effective or cost-beneficial.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our review identified a significant gap in economic evaluation of midwifery from low- and middle-income countries. However, there is ongoing need for robust, quality economic evaluations on midwifery service provision and workforce strategies in all global regions. Such studies would further support health policymakers and governments to make evidence-informed decisions to address midwifery workforce shortages and provision of evidence-based and respectful care that meets the healthcare needs of women and girls.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-025-00962-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Midwives are essential in achieving universal health coverage targets and the health targets of the Sustainable Development Goals, yet a significant global shortfall exists in the midwifery workforce. Economic evaluations of midwifery are scarce but can assist in supporting evidence-informed decision-making for sustainable and equitable health care for women and girls.

Objectives: This review aimed to systematically identify, map and report on available literature regarding economic evaluations conducted on midwifery service provision and the midwifery workforce in all settings.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and run in six health databases. Peer-reviewed studies and unpublished research theses conducting economic evaluations on midwifery service provision or midwifery workforce strategies were included. Sources were limited to English-language literature published in the past 20 years. Identified sources were screened and reviewed, and data from included sources were extracted, reviewed, mapped and synthesised to report findings. Quality appraisal was conducted on all included sources using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations.

Results: A total of 32 studies were included in the review. Most were from high-income countries (26/32), and very few were from low- and middle-income countries (6/32). The quality of included studies varied greatly. Under half of the studies conducted full economic evaluations (15/32), and the remainder were partial economic evaluations (17/32). Most studies evaluated midwifery service provision (29/32) through either midwife-led models of care (15/29) or by place of birth (13/29), mostly for low-risk women (23/29) from the perspective of healthcare funders. Evaluation of midwifery education programs was less common, and these were all conducted in low- and middle-income countries (3/32). Most studies concluded that midwifery service provision was cost-saving, cost-effective or cost-beneficial.

Conclusions: Our review identified a significant gap in economic evaluation of midwifery from low- and middle-income countries. However, there is ongoing need for robust, quality economic evaluations on midwifery service provision and workforce strategies in all global regions. Such studies would further support health policymakers and governments to make evidence-informed decisions to address midwifery workforce shortages and provision of evidence-based and respectful care that meets the healthcare needs of women and girls.

助产服务提供和助产人员经济评估的范围综述。
背景:助产士对于实现全民健康覆盖具体目标和可持续发展目标的健康具体目标至关重要,但全球助产士队伍存在严重短缺。助产的经济评价很少,但可以帮助支持循证决策,为妇女和女童提供可持续和公平的保健服务。目的:本综述旨在系统地识别、绘制和报告有关在所有环境中对助产服务提供和助产人员进行经济评估的现有文献。方法:根据乔安娜布里格斯研究所的方法进行范围审查。制定了一项综合搜索战略,并在六个卫生数据库中运行。包括对助产服务提供或助产劳动力战略进行经济评估的同行评议研究和未发表的研究论文。资料来源仅限于过去20年出版的英语文学。筛选和审查已确定的来源,并从纳入的来源提取、审查、绘制和综合数据,以报告发现。使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所经济评估关键评估清单对所有纳入的资源进行质量评估。结果:本综述共纳入32项研究。大多数来自高收入国家(26/32),很少来自低收入和中等收入国家(6/32)。纳入研究的质量差异很大。不到一半的研究进行了全面的经济评价(15/32),其余的是部分经济评价(17/32)。大多数研究通过助产士主导的护理模式(15/29)或按出生地(13/29)评估助产服务的提供(29/32),主要是从保健资助者的角度评估低风险妇女(23/29)。对助产教育项目的评估不太常见,这些都是在低收入和中等收入国家进行的(3/32)。大多数研究的结论是,提供助产服务是节省成本、具有成本效益或具有成本效益的。结论:我们的综述发现了低收入和中等收入国家在助产经济评估方面的显著差距。然而,目前仍需要对全球所有区域的助产服务提供和劳动力战略进行强有力、高质量的经济评估。这些研究将进一步支持卫生政策制定者和政府作出循证决策,解决助产人员短缺问题,并提供循证和尊重的护理,满足妇女和女童的保健需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信