149 Realist review of Midwife-Led Continuity of Care implementation REFERENCES 1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [published Online First: 20210329] 2. Rayment-Jones H, Dalrymple K, Harris J, et al. Project20: Does continuity of care and community based antenatal care improve maternal and neonatal birth outcomes for women with social risk factors? A prospective, observational study. PLoS One 2021;16(5):e0250947. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250947 [published Online First: 20210504] 3. Homer CS, Leap N, Edwards N, Sandall J. Midwifery continuity of carer in an area of high socio economic disadvantage in London: A retrospective analysis of Albany Midwifery Practice outcomes using routine data (1997-2009). Midwifery 2017;48:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j. midw.2017.02.009 [published Online First: 20170227] 4. Sandall J, Fernandez Turienzo C, Devane D, et al. Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024;4(4):CD004667. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub6 [published Online First: 20240410] 5. WorldHealthOrganization. WHO recommendations. Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience.: World Health Organization, 2018. 6. UNFPA WaI. The State of the World’s Midwifery 2021. 2021 [Available from: https://www. unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/21-038-UNFPA-SoWMy2021-Report ENv4302_0.pdf accessed August 2023. 7. McCourt C. Supporting choice and control? Communication and interaction between midwives and women at the antenatal booking visit. Soc Sci Med 2006;62(6):1307-18. doi: 10.1016/j. socscimed.2005.07.031 [published Online First: 20050829] 8. McRae DN, Janssen PA, Vedam S, et al. Reduced prevalence of small-for-gestational-age and preterm birth for women of low socioeconomic position: a population-based cohort study comparing antenatal midwifery and physician models of care. BMJ Open 2018;8(10):e022220. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022220 [published Online First: 20181003] 9. Yoshida Y, Sandall J. Occupational burnout and work factors in community and hospital midwives: a survey analysis. Midwifery 2013;29(8):921-6 doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.11.002 [published Online First: 20130215] 10. Todd CJ, Farquhar MC, Camilleri-Ferrante C. Team midwifery: the views and job satisfaction of midwives. Midwifery 1998;14(4):214-24. doi: 10.1016/s0266-6138(98)90093-6 11. Taylor B, Cross-Sudworth F, Goodwin L, et al. Midwives’ perspectives of continuity based working in the UK: A cross-sectional survey. Midwifery 2019;75:127-37. doi: 10.1016/j. midw.2019.05.005 [published Online First: 20190507] 12. Dawson K, Newton M, Forster D, McLachlan H. Comparing caseload and non-caseload midwives’ burnout levels and professional attitudes: A national, cross-sectional survey of Australian midwives working in the public maternity system. Midwifery 2018;63:60-67. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.04.026 [published Online First: 20180507] 13. Dixon L GK, Pallant JF, Sidebotham M, Fenwick J, McAra-Couper J, Gilkison A. The emotional wellbeing of New Zealand midwives: Comparing responses for midwives in caseloading and shift work settings. New Zealand of Midwives Journal 2017(53):5-14. 14. Bradford BF, Wilson AN, Portela A, et al. Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom? PLOS Glob Public Health 2022;2(10):e0000935. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000935 [published Online First: 20221005] 15. Dawson K, Forster DA, McLachlan HL, Newton MS. Operationalising caseload midwifery in the Australian public maternity system: Findings from a national cross-sectional survey of maternity managers. Women Birth 2018;31(3):194-201. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2017.08.132 [published Online First: 20170928] 6
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw