Interprofessional and intersectoral collaboration in the care of vulnerable pregnant women: An interpretive study

Improving integrated care for (future) parents facing vulnerable circumstances in the early life course of their (future) child: An action research protocol

INTRODUCTION

Suboptimal circumstances during the early life course, ranging from 100 days before conception to 1000 days following birth, significantly impact a child's future health and well-being. To optimize these circumstances, collaboration is needed which includes professionals working in medical, social and public domains, as well as parents. This action research protocol aims to improve care for (future) parents facing suboptimal circumstances during the early life course by enhancing inter-professional, cross-domain collaboration and (future) parents-professional collaboration. By employing iterative action research cycles, we seek to foster integrated care pathways and improve continuity of care across the medical, social and public domains. The research will be conducted in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Four action research cycles incorporating descriptive qualitative and quantitative studies, including focus groups, questionnaires and observations with (future) parents facing suboptimal circumstances, professionals and policymakers. This intervention study will not only foster improved, integrated care around identification of the need of additional support, referral and care, but also foster the necessary conditions for a self-supporting neighbourhood care learning network of (future) parents, professionals and policymakers to encourage bidirectional feedback and enable reflection beyond a single organisation. These interventions will also be evaluated.

DISSEMINATION

The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, layman summaries, regional and national knowledge platforms and presentations and factsheets relevant to all involved actors.

Exploring perceptions of vulnerability among women facing psychosocial adversity before, during and after pregnancy: A qualitative interview-study using thematic analysis

OBJECTIVE

The term 'vulnerable' is often used to describe women facing psychosocial adversity during pregnancy, implying a heightened risk of experiencing suboptimal pregnancy outcomes. While this label might facilitate the pathway to appropriate care, it can be perceived as stigmatizing by the women it intends to help, which could deter their interaction with healthcare services. This study explores how women facing psychosocial adversity before, during and after pregnancy perceive the concept of vulnerability and experience being labeled as such.

METHODS

We conducted a thematic analysis of semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Through purposive sampling targeting maximum variation, ten women of diverse backgrounds were included.

RESULTS

Three central themes emerged: defining vulnerability, embracing vulnerability and the feeling of being stigmatized. Women perceived vulnerability as an inability to adequately care for themselves or their children, necessitating additional support alongside routine antenatal care. Acceptance of the 'vulnerable' label came when it also acknowledged their proactive efforts and strengths to improve their situation. Conversely, if discussions surrounding vulnerability failed to recognize women's agency - specifically, their personal journeys and the courage needed to seek support - the label was perceived as stigmatizing.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing vulnerability effectively in maternity care requires a nuanced, patient-centered approach, acknowledging both the challenges and strengths of women facing psychosocial adversities. Emphasizing personal narratives and their courage in seeking support can mitigate the stigmatizing effects of the 'vulnerable' label. Integrating these narratives into maternal healthcare practices can foster deeper connections with the women involved, enhancing the overall quality of care.

Trusting parent-professional relationships in interprofessional interventions for expectant and new parents in vulnerable positions: A realist evaluation

Interprofessional collaboration and trusting parent-professional relationships can be key to delivering interprofessional care to meet the needs of expectant and new parents in vulnerable positions. This, however, presents challenges. This study aimed to gain deeper understanding of how and under what circumstances trusting parent-professional relationships develop and work within interprofessional team-based care for this group, from the professionals' perspectives. Realist evaluation was undertaken based on 14 semi-structured, realist interviews with midwives and health visitors and 11 observations. Multiple interrelated mechanisms were identified including patient/family-centered care, timely and relevant interprofessional involvement in care, gentle interprofessional bridging, transparency of intervention roles and purposes, and relational continuity. Good interprofessional collaboration was a primary condition for these mechanisms. Developed, trusting relationships supported parents' engagements with interprofessional care and constituted a supportive safety net that promoted parenting skills and coping abilities. We identified harmful mechanisms: distanced encounters, uncertainty of interprofessional involvement, and compromising the safe space. These mechanisms caused distrust and disengagement. Ensuring trusting parent-professional relationships within interprofessional team-based care demands each professional involved competently engages in relational work and interprofessional collaboration. Uncontrollability is thus influenced regarding interpersonal connection and potentially gives an explanation when trust-building efforts fail.

The Experiences of Midwives in Caring for Vulnerable Pregnant Women in The Netherlands: A Qualitative Cross-Sectional Study

Vulnerable pregnant women have an increased risk for preterm birth and perinatal mortality. This study identifies the perspectives, perceived barriers, and perceived facilitators of midwives toward current care for vulnerable pregnant women in the Netherlands. Knowing those perspectives, barriers, and facilitators could help increase quality of care, thereby reducing the risks of preterm birth and perinatal mortality. Midwives working in primary care practices throughout the Netherlands were interviewed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely through a video conference program, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded based on the theoretical domains framework and concepts derived from the interviews, using NVivo-12. All midwives provided psychosocial care for vulnerable pregnant women, expected positive consequences for those women resulting from that care, considered it their task to identify and refer vulnerable women, and intended to improve the situation for mother and child. The main barriers perceived by midwives were too many organizations being involved, inadequate communication between care providers, lack of time to care for vulnerable women, insufficient financing to provide adequate care, and uncooperative clients. The main facilitators were having care coordinators, treatment guidelines, vulnerability detection tools, their own knowledge about local psychosocial organizations, good communication skills, cooperative clients, consultation with colleagues, and good communication between care providers. The findings suggest that midwives are highly motivated to care for vulnerable women and perceive a multitude of facilitators. However, they also perceive various barriers for providing optimal care. A national guideline on how to care for vulnerable women, local overviews of involved organizations, and proactive midwives who ensure connections between the psychosocial and medical domain could help to overcome these barriers, and therefore, maximize effectiveness of the care for vulnerable pregnant women.

Protocol for a realist synthesis of health systems responsiveness in low-income and middle-income countries

INTRODUCTION

Health systems responsiveness is a key objective of any health system, yet it is the least studied of all objectives particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Research on health systems responsiveness highlights its multiple elements, for example, dignity and confidentiality. Little is known, however, about underlying theories of health systems responsiveness, and the mechanisms through which responsiveness works. This realist synthesis contributes to bridging these two knowledge gaps.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this realist synthesis, we will use a four-step process, comprising: mapping of theoretical bases, formulation of programme theories, theory refinement and testing of programme theories using literature and empirical data from Ghana and Vietnam. We will include theoretical and conceptual pieces, reviews, empirical studies and grey literature, alongside the primary data. We will explore responsiveness as entailing external and internal interactions within health systems. The search strategy will be purposive and iterative, with continuous screening and refinement of theories. Data extraction will be combined with quality appraisal, using appropriate tools. Each fragment of evidence will be appraised as it is being extracted, for its relevance to the emerging programme theories and methodological rigour. The extracted data pertaining to contexts, mechanisms and outcomes will be synthesised to identify patterns and contradictions. Results will be reported using narrative explanations, following established guidance on realist syntheses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approvals for the wider RESPONSE (Improving health systems responsiveness to neglected health needs of vulnerable groups in Ghana and Vietnam) study, of which this review is one part, were obtained from the ethics committees of the following institutions: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (ref: 22981), University of Leeds, School of Medicine (ref: MREC19-051), Ghana Health Service (ref: GHS-ERC 012/03/20) and Hanoi University of Public Health (ref: 020-149/DD-YTCC).We will disseminate results through academic papers, conference presentations and stakeholder workshops in Ghana and Vietnam.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020200353. Full record: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020200353.

Realist evaluation to improve health systems responsiveness to neglected health needs of vulnerable groups in Ghana and Vietnam: Study protocol

BACKGROUND

Socio-economic growth in many low and middle-income countries has resulted in more available, though not equitably accessible, healthcare. Such growth has also increased demands from citizens for their health systems to be more responsive to their needs. This paper shares a protocol for the RESPONSE study which aims to understand, co-produce, implement and evaluate context-sensitive interventions to improve health systems responsiveness to health needs of vulnerable groups in Ghana and Vietnam.

METHODS

We will use a realist mixed-methods theory-driven case study design, combining quantitative (household survey, secondary analysis of facility data) and qualitative (in-depth interviews, focus groups, observations and document and literature review) methods. Data will be analysed retroductively. The study will comprise three Phases. In Phase 1, we will understand actors' expectations of responsive health systems, identify key priorities for interventions, and using evidence from a realist synthesis we will develop an initial theory and generate a baseline data. In Phase 2, we will co-produce jointly with key actors, the context-sensitive interventions to improve health systems responsiveness. The interventions will seek to improve internal (i.e. intra-system) and external (i.e. people-systems) interactions through participatory workshops. In Phase 3, we will implement and evaluate the interventions by testing and refining our initial theory through comparing the intended design to the interventions' actual performance.

DISCUSSION

The study's key outcomes will be: (1) improved health systems responsiveness, contributing to improved health services and ultimately health outcomes in Ghana and Vietnam and (2) an empirically-grounded and theoretically-informed model of complex contexts-mechanisms-outcomes relations, together with transferable best practices for scalability and generalisability. Decision-makers across different levels will be engaged throughout. Capacity strengthening will be underpinned by in-depth understanding of capacity needs and assets of each partner team, and will aim to strengthen individual, organisational and system level capacities.