Evaluating midwifery-led antenatal care: Using a programme logic model to identify relevant outcomes

Midwifery

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Butler, Michelle M ^a   Brosnan, Mary C ^b   Drennan, Jonathan ^a   Feeney, Patricia ^b   Gavigan, Orla ^b   Kington, Maureen ^b   O'Brien, Denise ^a   Sheehy, Lucille ^b   Walsh, Maura C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Antenatal care; Evaluation; Midwifery led care; Programme logic model

Indexed keywords

FEMALE; HUMAN; IRELAND; MIDWIFE; NURSING PRACTICE; PERINATAL CARE; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

FEMALE; HUMANS; IRELAND; LOGISTIC MODELS; MIDWIFERY; NURSE'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PERINATAL CARE; PREGNANCY; PROGRAM EVALUATION;

EID: 84889683281     PISSN: 02666138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Afifi R.A., Makhoul J., El Hajj T., Nakkash R.T. Developing a logic model for youth mental health: participatory research with a refugee community in Beirut. Health Policy Plan. 2011, 26:508-517.
2. Bernitz S., Rolland R., Blix E., Jacobsen M., Sjøborg K., Øiand P. Is the operative delivery rate in low-risk women dependent on the level of birth care? A randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2011, 118:1357-1364.
3. Bucher J.A. Using the logic model for planning and evaluation: examples for new users. Home Health Care Manag. Pract. 2010, 22:325-333.
4. Caird, J., Rees, R., Kavanagh, J., et al., 2010. The Socioeconomic Value of Nursing and Midwifery: A Rapid Systematic Review of Reviews. EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London.
5. Cooksy L., Gill P., Kelly P. The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation. Eval. Program Plann. 2001, 24:119-128.
6. de Vlaming R., Haveman-Nies A., van't Veer P., de Groot L. Evaluation design for a complex intervention program targeting loneliness in non-institutionalized elderly Dutch people. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:552.
7. Devane D., Begley C.M., Clarke M., Horey D., OBoyle C. Evaluating maternity care: a core set of outcome measures. Birth 2007, 34:164-172.
8. Devane D., Brennan M., Begley C., et al. A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, Meta-Synthesis and Economic Analysis of Midwife-Led Models of Care 2010, Royal College of Midwives, London.
9. Dykeman M., MacIntosh J., Seaman P., Davidson P. Development of a program logic model to measure the processes and outcomes of a nurse-managed community health clinic. J. Prof. Nurs. 2003, 19:197-203.
10. Francis R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry 2013, Stationery Office, London.
11. Gavazzi S., Wasserman D., Partridge C., Sheridan S. The growing up fast diversion program: an example of juvenile justice program development for outcome evaluation. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2000, 5:159-175.
12. Green J., Renfrew M., Curtis P. Continuity of carer: what matters to women? A review of the evidence. Midwifery 2000, 16:186-196.
13. Hallinan C.M. Program logic: a framework for health program design and evaluation - the pap nurse in general practice program. Aust. J. Prim. Health 2010, 16:319-325.
14. Hatem, M., Sandall, J., Devane, D., Soltani, H., Gates, S., 2008. Midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (8), CD004667.
15. Hayes H., Parchman M.L., Howard R. A logic model framework for evaluation and planning in a primary care practice-based research network (pbrn). J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 2011, 24:576-582.
16. Hildingsson I., Haines H., Cross M., Pallant J., Rubertsson C. Women's satisfaction with antenatal care: comparing women in Sweden and Australia. Women Birth: J. Aust. Coll. Midwives 2013, 26:e9-e14.
17. Hildingsson I., Waldenstrom U., Radestad I. Women's expectations on antenatal care as assessed in early pregnancy: number of visits, continuity of caregiver and general content. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2002, 81:118-125.
18. Hill J.R., Thies J. Program theory and logic model to address the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment. Eval. Program Plann. 2010, 33:356-364.
19. HIQA, 2012. National Standards for Safer Better Healthcare. Health Information and Quality Authority, Cork.
20. Huber U., Sandall J. A qualitative exploration of the creation of calm in a continuity of carer model of maternity care in London. Midwifery 2009, 25:613-621.
21. Hughes D., Deery R. Where's the midwifery in midwife-led care?. Pract. Midwife 2002, 5:18-19.
22. IOG, 2006. The Future of Maternity and Gynaecology Services in Ireland, 2006-2016. Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Dublin.
23. Julian D., Jones A., Deyo D. Open systems evaluation and the logic model: program planning and evaluation tools. Eval. Program Plann. 1995, 18:333-341.
24. Kaplan, R., Norton, D., 1992. The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb), pp. 71-79.
25. Keefe C.M.O., Head R.J. Application of logic models in a large scientific research program. Eval. Program Plann. 2011, 34:174-184.
26. Kinder, P., 2001. Report of the Maternity Services Review Group. North Eastern Health Board, Kells.
27. KPMG, 2008. Independent Review of Maternity and Gynaecology Services in the Greater Dublin Area. KPMG, Dublin.
28. Leap N. Woman-centred or women-centred care: does it matter?. Br. J. Midwifery 2009, 17:12-16.
29. Lynch, P., 2011. Baby boom brings no joy. Medical Independent, 24 March 2011.
30. MacPhee M., Developing a practice-academic partnership logic model, YMNO 57, 2009, 143-147.
31. Masterson A. Core and Developing Role of the Midwife: Literature Review 2010, Department of Health, London.
32. McCance T., Telford L., Wilson J., Macleod O., Dowd A. Identifying key performance indicators for nursing and midwifery care using a consensus approach. J. Clin. Nurs. 2012, 21:1145-1154.
33. McInnes R., Chambers J. Supporting breastfeeding mothers: qualitative synthesis. J. Adv. Nurs. 2008, 62:407-427.
34. McLaughlin J.A., Jordan G.B. Evaluation and program planning - logic models: a tool for telling your program's performance story. Eval. Program Plann. 1999, 22:65-72.
35. McNeill, J., Lynn, F., Alderdice, F., 2010. Systematic Review of Reviews. Queen's University, Belfast.
36. Ministry of Health, 2007. Report on Maternity: Maternal and Newborn Information 2004. Ministry of Health, Wellington, New Zealand.
37. NCNM, 2009. Enhanced midwifery Practice. National Council for the Professional Development of Nursing and Midwifery, Dublin.
38. NICE Antenatal Care: Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman 2008, RCOG Press, London.
39. RCM, 2010. The Royal College of Midwives' Audit of Midwifery Practice. Royal College of Midwives, London.
40. RCOG, 2008. Standards for Maternity Care. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gyneacologists, London.
41. RCOG, 2011. High Quality Women's Health Care: A Proposal for Change. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gyneacologists, London.
42. Redshaw M. Women as consumers of maternity care: measuring 'satisfaction' or 'dissatisfaction'?. Birth 2008, 35:73-76.
43. Sandall J., Homer C., Sadler E., et al. Staffing in Maternity Units: Getting the Right People in the Right Place at the Right Time 2011, The King's Fund, London.
44. Scheirer M. Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. Am. J. Eval. 2005, 26:320-347.
45. Symon A. Saying sorry: apologies in the context of complaints and litigation. Br. J. Midwifery 2013, 21:676-677.
46. UK Chief Nursing Officers, 2010. Midwifery 2020: Delivering Expectations. Midwifery 2020 Programme, London.
47. United Way of America, 2003. Outcome Measurement in Health and Human Services and Accrediting Organisations. United Way of America, Virginia.
48. Unrau Y. Using client exit interviews to illuminate outcomes in program logic models: a case example. Eval. Program Plann. 2001, 24:353-361.
49. Villar, J., Carroli, G., Khan-Neelofur, D., Piaggio, G., Gülmezoglu, M., 2001. Patterns of routine antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001 (Issue 4, Art. No.: CD000934).
50. Waldenstrom U., Turnbull D. A systematic review comparing continuity of midwifery care with standard maternity services. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1998, 105:1160-1170.
51. Walsh D. Continuity of carer: miracle or mirage. Br. J. Midwifery 1995, 3:336-338.
52. Yampolskaya S., Nesman T., Hernandez M., Koch D. Using concept mapping to develop a logic model and articulate a program theory: a case example. Am. J. Eval. 2004, 25:191-207.