Qualitative systematic review of general practitioners' (GPs') views and experiences of providing postnatal care
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Develop an understanding of the views and experiences of general practitioners (GPs) about their role in postnatal care, including barriers and facilitators to good care, and timing and content of planned postnatal checks.
DESIGN: Qualitative systematic review.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic database searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO from January 1990 to September 2021. Grey literature and guideline references from National Institute of Health and Care Excellence, WHO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
INCLUSION CRITERIA: Papers reporting qualitative data on views and experiences of GPs about postnatal care, including discrete clinical conditions in the postnatal period. Papers were screened independently by two reviewers and disputes resolved by a third reviewer.
QUALITY APPRAISAL: The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist was used to appraise studies.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Thematic synthesis involving line-by-line coding, generation of descriptive then analytical themes was conducted by the review team. The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model was used to develop analytical themes.
RESULTS: 20 reports from 18 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were published from 2008 to 2021, reporting on 469 GPs. 13 were from UK or Australia. Some also reported views of non-GP participants. The…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Regulation of nucleolus assembly by non-coding RNA polymerase II transcripts
- For a Healthy Histone Code, a Little SUMO in the Tail Keeps the Acetyl Away
- Discovering a binary CTCF code with a little help from BORIS
- Article Commentary: Stabilizing the Code–-Methods to Preserve RNA Prove Their Worth
- Foreword to the Special Issue for the RINTC (The Implicit Seismic Risk of Code-Conforming Structures) Project
- Commentary: Promoting Health and Well-being in Pediatric Primary Care Settings: Using Health and Behavior Codes at Routine Well-child Visits
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.