Project20: maternity care mechanisms that improve access and engagement for women with social risk factors in the UK – a mixed-methods, realist evaluation

Objectives To evaluate how women access and engage with different models of maternity care, whether specialist models improve access and engagement for women with social risk factors, and if so, how? Design Realist evaluation. Setting Two UK maternity service providers. Participants Women accessing maternity services in 2019 (n=1020). Methods Prospective observational cohort with multinomial regression analysis to compare measures of access and engagement between models and place of antenatal care. Realist informed, longitudinal interviews with women accessing specialist models of care were analysed to identify mechanisms. Main outcome measures Measures of access and engagement, healthcare-seeking experiences. Results The number of social risk factors women were experiencing increased with deprivation score, with the most deprived more likely to receive a specialist model that provided continuity of care. Women attending hospital-based antenatal care were more likely to access maternity care late (risk ratio (RR) 2.51, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.70), less likely to have the recommended number of antenatal appointments (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99) and more likely to have over 15 appointments (RR 4.90, 95% CI 2.50 to 9.61) compared with community-based care. Women accessing standard care (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.11) and black women (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.11) were less likely to have appointments with a known healthcare professional compared with the specialist model. Qualitative data revealed mechanisms for improved access and engagement including self-referral, relational continuity with a small team of midwives, flexibility and situating services within deprived community settings. Conclusion Inequalities in access and engagement with maternity care appears to have been mitigated by the community-based specialist model that provided continuity of care. The findings enabled the refinement of a realist programme theory to inform those developing maternity services in line with current policy.

[1]  A. Harden,et al.  Project20: Maternity care mechanisms that improve (or exacerbate) health inequalities. A realist evaluation. , 2022, Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives.

[2]  Ferdinand C. Mukumbang.  Retroductive Theorizing: A Contribution of Critical Realism to Mixed Methods Research , 2021, Journal of Mixed Methods Research.

[3]  A. Harden,et al.  Project20: interpreter services for pregnant women with social risk factors in England: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how? , 2021, International Journal for Equity in Health.

[4]  L. Howard,et al.  Addressing inequities in maternal health among women living in communities of social disadvantage and ethnic diversity , 2021, BMC Public Health.

[5]  J. Eastwood,et al.  Examining the Application of Retroductive Theorizing in Realist-Informed Studies , 2021, International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

[6]  J. Jagosh,et al.  Retroductive theorizing in Pawson and Tilley's applied scientific realism , 2020 .

[7]  A. Harden,et al.  Project 20: Midwives’ insight into continuity of care models for women with social risk factors: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how , 2020, Midwifery.

[8]  K. Bharj,et al.  Experience of and access to maternity care in the UK by immigrant women: a narrative synthesis systematic review , 2019, BMJ Open.

[9]  J. Nam,et al.  Do severe maternal morbidity and adequate prenatal care affect the delivery cost? A nationwide cohort study for 11 years with follow up , 2019, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[10]  D. Voaklander,et al.  Maternal Area of Residence, Socioeconomic Status, and Risk of Adverse Maternal and Birth Outcomes in Adolescent Mothers. , 2019, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC.

[11]  A. Harden,et al.  How do women with social risk factors experience United Kingdom maternity care? A realist synthesis , 2019, Birth.

[12]  J. Jagosh.  Realist Synthesis for Public Health: Building an Ontologically Deep Understanding of How Programs Work, For Whom, and In Which Contexts. , 2019, Annual review of public health.

[13]  R. Ravn.  Testing mechanisms in large-N realistic evaluations , 2019, Evaluation.

[14]  M. Wiggins,et al.  Better together: A qualitative exploration of women's perceptions and experiences of group antenatal care. , 2019, Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives.

[15]  J. Barnett,et al.  Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[16]  M. Kruk,et al.  Equity in antenatal care quality: an analysis of 91 national household surveys , 2018, The Lancet. Global health.

[17]  Mary Gogarty,et al.  English Indices of Deprivation 2015 , 2018 .

[18]  Lynda R Hardy,et al.  Midwifery and Antenatal Care for Black Women: A Narrative Review , 2018 .

[19]  WHO Recommendations on Antenatal Care for a Positive Pregnancy Experience: Summary , 2018 .

[20]  C. Homer,et al.  Working with Vulnerable Pregnant Women Who Are At Risk of Having their Babies Removed by the Child Protection Agency in New South Wales, Australia , 2017 .

[21]  A. Higgins.  Perinatal mental health: an exploration of practices, policies, processes and education needs of midwives and nurses within maternity and primary care services in Ireland , 2017 .

[22]  G. Oates,et al.  Perceived Discrimination and Privilege in Health Care: The Role of Socioeconomic Status and Race. , 2017, American journal of preventive medicine.

[23]  Neel T Shah,et al.  Drivers of maternity care in high-income countries: can health systems support woman-centred care? , 2016, The Lancet.

[24]  A. Costello,et al.  Asking different questions: research priorities to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child. , 2016, The Lancet. Global health.

[25]  M. Wiggins,et al.  Timing of the initiation of antenatal care: An exploratory qualitative study of women and service providers in East London , 2016, Midwifery.

[26]  A. Manzano,et al.  The craft of interviewing in realist evaluation , 2016 .

[27]  J. Kurinczuk,et al.  Risk factors and newborn outcomes associated with maternal deaths in the UK from 2009 to 2013: a national case–control study , 2016, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[28]  S. Downe,et al.  What matters to women: a systematic scoping review to identify the processes and outcomes of antenatal care provision that are important to healthy pregnant women , 2016, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[29]  J. Kurinczuk,et al.  Experiences, utilisation and outcomes of maternity care in England among women from different socio‐economic groups: findings from the 2010 National Maternity Survey , 2015, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[30]  Greg Ogrinc,et al.  Squire 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. , 2015, American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.

[31]  Emma B. Saxon.  Multiple comparisons , 2015, BMC Biology.

[32]  Communities.  English Indices of Deprivation 2010 , 2015 .

[33]  F. Davidoff,et al.  SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process , 2015, BMJ Quality & Safety.

[34]  Andrea L. Cherrington,et al.  "We'll Get to You When We Get to You": Exploring Potential Contributions of Health Care Staff Behaviors to Patient Perceptions of Discrimination and Satisfaction. , 2015, American journal of public health.

[35]  R. Deuchar,et al.  Researching Marginalized Groups , 2015 .

[36]  T. Murrells,et al.  An investigation of the relationship between the caseload model of midwifery for socially disadvantaged women and childbirth outcomes using routine data--a retrospective, observational study. , 2015, Midwifery.

[37]  A. Malata,et al.  Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care , 2014, The Lancet.

[38]  R. Walker.  The Shame of Poverty , 2014 .

[39]  C. Mitchell,et al.  Understanding delayed access to antenatal care: a qualitative interview study , 2014, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[40]  M. Ausems,et al.  Dutch midwives' behavioural intentions of antenatal management of maternal distress and factors influencing these intentions: an exploratory survey. , 2014, Midwifery.

[41]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  Stigma, status, and population health. , 2014, Social science & medicine.

[42]  J. Jomeen,et al.  Assessing women’s perinatal psychological health: exploring the experiences of health visitors , 2013 .

[43]  D. Devane,et al.  Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[44]  N. Gale,et al.  Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[45]  A. Harden,et al.  Predictors of the timing of initiation of antenatal care in an ethnically diverse urban cohort in the UK , 2013, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[46]  Ray Pawson,et al.  The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto , 2013 .

[47]  Y. Miller,et al.  Weight stigma in maternity care: women’s experiences and care providers’ attitudes , 2013, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[48]  Soo Downe,et al.  Why Do Women Not Use Antenatal Services in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies , 2013, PLoS medicine.

[49]  A. Watterson,et al.  Engagement: an indicator of difference in the perceptions of antenatal care for pregnant women from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds , 2012, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[50]  Carol Thomas,et al.  The value of interviewing on multiple occasions or longitudinally , 2012 .

[51]  P. Radcliffe.  Substance-misusing women: Stigma in the maternity setting , 2011 .

[52]  A. Lalonde.  Global strategy for women's and children's health. , 2010, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC.

[53]  S. Murray,et al.  Metrics for monitoring local inequalities in access to maternity care: developing a basket of markers from routinely available data , 2010, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[54]  G. Hommel,et al.  Confidence interval or p-value?: part 4 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. , 2009, Deutsches Arzteblatt international.

[55]  Sharin Baldwin,et al.  Do specialist community public health nurses assess risk factors for depression, suicide, and self-harm among South Asian mothers living in London? , 2009, Public health nursing.

[56]  J. Askham,et al.  Social and ethnic differences in attendance for antenatal care in England. , 2008, Public health.

[57]  A. Rafferty,et al.  Midwives, Society and Childbirth: Debates and Controversies in the Modern Period , 2002 .

[58]  P. Curtis,et al.  The inverse care law in antenatal midwifery care , 2002 .

[59]  R. Taylor,et al.  NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EXCELLENCE (NICE) , 2002, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[60]  R. Jane.  Midwives, society and childbirth: debates and controversies in the modern period , 1999 .

[61]  J. E. Jameson.  Inverse care law. , 1971, Lancet.