Models and frameworks of reflective clinical supervision for midwives: a scoping review.

IF 4.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Annabel Tafe, Sue Kruske, Pamela Res McCalman, Sascha Kowalenko, Jyai Allen
{"title":"Models and frameworks of reflective clinical supervision for midwives: a scoping review.","authors":"Annabel Tafe, Sue Kruske, Pamela Res McCalman, Sascha Kowalenko, Jyai Allen","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-25-00157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review was to map the extent of literature on models and frameworks of reflective clinical supervision for midwives that embed concepts of cultural safety and trauma-informed practice, identifying key characteristics and knowledge gaps to guide future research.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Reflective clinical supervision is gaining momentum as a potential strategy to support the well-being of midwives and improve quality of care. However, it is not routinely offered by maternity services, and evidence of established practice models is scarce. Additionally, a culturally safe midwifery workforce is a global priority, as culturally unsafe care contributes to poorer outcomes for First Nations mothers and babies. However, it is not known how models of reflective clinical supervision embed cultural safety and trauma-informed principles, particularly for midwives caring for First Nations women.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>This scoping review considered peer-reviewed original literature and gray literature that described models or frameworks of reflective clinical supervision for midwives. The context of the search was global midwifery practice; therefore, no geographical or date limitations were applied. Eligible settings included all systems in which midwives operate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodological guidance and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A search strategy was adapted for each database and information source including APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (EBSCOhost) and Cochrane Library. Sources of unpublished studies and gray literature searched included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google and Google Scholar, and targeted searching of relevant government and health service websites. The search did not apply date or geographical limitations. The search was conducted between October 11, 2024, and November 18, 2024. After a pilot test of the screening process, data were extracted and analyzed using basic inductive qualitative content analysis. Data are presented narratively and in tabular and figure formats.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen sources were included in the scoping review consisting of both primary research and clinical practice guidelines published between 2005 and 2024. Much of the literature originated from Australia (n=9) and the remainder from England, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, and Wales. Ten different models and frameworks of reflective clinical supervision used in midwifery were described, with no one-size-fits-all model of reflective clinical supervision identified. This scoping review identified 6 key characteristics of effective midwifery models of reflective clinical supervision: functions, guided reflection, safe reflective environment, session structure, trusting alliance, and supervisor characteristics. Cultural safety or trauma-informed practices for midwives were not embedded in any of the included models or frameworks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review found that most models of reflective clinical supervision used for midwives were implemented in both nursing and midwifery contexts, with only a few models specific to midwifery contexts. Further research is needed to explore how the principles of cultural safety and trauma-informed practice are applied in reflective clinical supervision for midwives, especially those supporting First Nations women.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>OSF https://osf.io/vf73w.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-25-00157","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this review was to map the extent of literature on models and frameworks of reflective clinical supervision for midwives that embed concepts of cultural safety and trauma-informed practice, identifying key characteristics and knowledge gaps to guide future research.

Introduction: Reflective clinical supervision is gaining momentum as a potential strategy to support the well-being of midwives and improve quality of care. However, it is not routinely offered by maternity services, and evidence of established practice models is scarce. Additionally, a culturally safe midwifery workforce is a global priority, as culturally unsafe care contributes to poorer outcomes for First Nations mothers and babies. However, it is not known how models of reflective clinical supervision embed cultural safety and trauma-informed principles, particularly for midwives caring for First Nations women.

Eligibility criteria: This scoping review considered peer-reviewed original literature and gray literature that described models or frameworks of reflective clinical supervision for midwives. The context of the search was global midwifery practice; therefore, no geographical or date limitations were applied. Eligible settings included all systems in which midwives operate.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodological guidance and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A search strategy was adapted for each database and information source including APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (EBSCOhost) and Cochrane Library. Sources of unpublished studies and gray literature searched included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google and Google Scholar, and targeted searching of relevant government and health service websites. The search did not apply date or geographical limitations. The search was conducted between October 11, 2024, and November 18, 2024. After a pilot test of the screening process, data were extracted and analyzed using basic inductive qualitative content analysis. Data are presented narratively and in tabular and figure formats.

Results: Nineteen sources were included in the scoping review consisting of both primary research and clinical practice guidelines published between 2005 and 2024. Much of the literature originated from Australia (n=9) and the remainder from England, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, and Wales. Ten different models and frameworks of reflective clinical supervision used in midwifery were described, with no one-size-fits-all model of reflective clinical supervision identified. This scoping review identified 6 key characteristics of effective midwifery models of reflective clinical supervision: functions, guided reflection, safe reflective environment, session structure, trusting alliance, and supervisor characteristics. Cultural safety or trauma-informed practices for midwives were not embedded in any of the included models or frameworks.

Conclusions: This review found that most models of reflective clinical supervision used for midwives were implemented in both nursing and midwifery contexts, with only a few models specific to midwifery contexts. Further research is needed to explore how the principles of cultural safety and trauma-informed practice are applied in reflective clinical supervision for midwives, especially those supporting First Nations women.

Review registration: OSF https://osf.io/vf73w.

模型和框架的反思临床监督助产士:范围审查。
目的:本综述的目的是绘制关于助产士反思临床监督模型和框架的文献范围,这些模型和框架包含文化安全和创伤知情实践的概念,确定关键特征和知识差距,以指导未来的研究。导言:反思性临床监督作为支持助产士福祉和提高护理质量的潜在策略正在获得动力。然而,产妇服务机构并不经常提供这种服务,而且缺乏已建立的实践模式的证据。此外,文化上安全的助产人员队伍是全球的优先事项,因为文化上不安全的护理会导致原住民母亲和婴儿的预后较差。然而,目前尚不清楚反思性临床监督模式如何嵌入文化安全和创伤知情原则,特别是对于照顾第一民族妇女的助产士。资格标准:该范围综述考虑了同行评议的原始文献和灰色文献,这些文献描述了助产士反思性临床监督的模型或框架。搜索的背景是全球助产实践;因此,没有地域或日期限制。符合条件的环境包括助产士工作的所有系统。方法:根据JBI方法学指南进行范围评价,并按照系统评价和荟萃分析范围评价扩展的首选报告项目(PRISMA-ScR)进行报告。针对APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost)、CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、MEDLINE (EBSCOhost)和Cochrane Library等数据库和信息源,采用了相应的搜索策略。未发表研究和灰色文献检索的来源包括ProQuest dissertation and Theses、谷歌和谷歌Scholar,以及针对性地检索相关政府和卫生服务网站。调查不受日期或地域限制。搜寻工作在2024年10月11日至11月18日之间进行。在筛选过程中试后,采用基本的归纳定性含量分析对数据进行提取和分析。数据以叙述的方式,以表格和图形的形式呈现。结果:19个来源被纳入范围审查,包括2005年至2024年间发表的主要研究和临床实践指南。大部分文献来自澳大利亚(n=9),其余来自英格兰、爱尔兰、新西兰、苏格兰和威尔士。本文描述了助产学中使用的十种不同的反思性临床监督模式和框架,但没有发现一种适合所有人的反思性临床监督模式。本综述确定了有效的助产反思性临床监督模式的6个关键特征:功能、引导反思、安全反思环境、会话结构、信任联盟和监督者特征。助产士的文化安全或创伤知情实践没有嵌入任何纳入的模型或框架中。结论:本综述发现,大多数用于助产士的反思性临床监督模式都是在护理和助产环境中实施的,只有少数模式专门针对助产环境。需要进一步的研究来探索如何将文化安全和创伤知情实践的原则应用于助产士的反思性临床监督,特别是那些支持第一民族妇女的助产士。评审注册:OSF https://osf.io/vf73w。
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
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
×
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
小红书