Global stakeholder perspectives of home birth: a systematic scoping review

被引：0
作者：
Ginny Brunton
Samira Wahab
Hassan Sheikh
Beth Murray Davis
机构：
[1] Ontario Tech University,Faculty of Health Sciences
[2] McMaster University,McMaster Midwifery Research Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Health Sciences
来源：
Systematic Reviews | / 10卷
关键词：
Home birth; Systematic review; Stakeholders; Health policy; Perspectives; Qualitative research;
D O I：
暂无
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Home birth is experienced by people very differently worldwide. These experiences likely differ by the type of stakeholder involved (women, their support persons, birth attendants, policy-makers), the experience itself (low-risk birth, transfer to hospital, previous deliveries), and by the health system within which home birth occurs (e.g., high-resource versus low- and middle-resource countries). Research evidence of stakeholders’ perspectives of home birth could usefully inform personal and policy decisions about choosing and providing home birth, but the current literature is fragmented and its breadth is not fully understood.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 278 条
  • [41] Renfrew MJ(2018)Canada’s evacuation policy for pregnant First Nations women: resignation, resilience, and resistance Women Birth 31 479-249
  • [42] McFadden A(2014)Deciding on home or hospital birth: results of the Ontario choice of birthplace survey Midwifery 30 869-12
  • [43] Bastos MH(2012)Why home birth? A qualitative study exploring women’s decision making about place of birth in two Canadian provinces Midwifery 28 576-1746
  • [44] Campbell J(2007)Home or away? Factors affecting where women choose to give birth Can Fam Physician 53 78-21
  • [45] Channon AA(2011)Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study BMJ 343 d7400-22
  • [46] Cheung NF(2019)Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems Syst Rev 8 170-SS14
  • [47] Geleto A(2005)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework Int J Soc Res Methodol 8 19-403
  • [48] Chojenta C(2011)The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 343 d5928-87
  • [49] Musa A(2015)Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual) PLoS Med 12 e1001895-undefined
  • [50] Loxton D(2019)Patient-led decision making: measuring autonomy and respect in Canadian maternity care Patient Educ Couns 102 586-undefined
12345678910