Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36997901›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Factors that shape recurrent miscarriage care experiences: findings from a national survey.

Caragh Flannery, Marita Hennessy, Rebecca Dennehy, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Con Lucey, Jennifer Ui Dhubhgain, Keelin O'Donoghue

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Women's Experiences of Psychosocial Support after Recurrent Miscarriage: A Qualitative Content Analysis.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Involving Knowledge Users in Health Services Research: Collective Reflections and Learning From a National Evaluation of Recurrent Miscarriage Services.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Caragh FlanneryPregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Marita HennessyPregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. maritahennessy@ucc.ie.
Rebecca DennehyPregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Karen Matvienko-SikarSchool of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Con LuceyRE:CURRENT Research Advisory Group, Pregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Jennifer Ui DhubhgainRE:CURRENT Research Advisory Group, Pregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Keelin O'DonoghuePregnancy Loss Research Group, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
University College Cork · IEInfant · IE

Funding

Health Research Board ILP-HSR-2019-011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLearning what matters to women/couples with recurrent miscarriage (RM) is essential to inform service improvement efforts and future RM care practices. Previous national and international surveys have examined inpatient stays, maternity care, and care experiences around pregnancy loss, but there is little focus on RM care. We aimed to explore the experiences of women and men who have received RM care and identify patient-centred care items linked to overall RM care experience.

methodsBetween September and November 2021, we invited people who had experienced two or more consecutive first trimester miscarriages and received care for RM in Ireland in the ten-year period prior to participate in a cross-sectional web-based national survey. The survey was purposefully designed and administered via Qualtrics. It included questions on sociodemographics, pregnancy and pregnancy loss history, investigation and treatment for RM, overall RM care experience, and patient-centred care items at various stages of the RM care pathway such as respect for patients' preferences, information and support, the environment, and involvement of partners/family. We analysed data using Stata.

resultsWe included 139 participants (97% women, n = 135) in our analysis. Of the 135 women, 79% were aged 35-44 years (n = 106), 24% rated their overall RM care experience as poor (n = 32), 36% said the care they received was much worse than expected (n = 48), and 60% stated health care professionals in different places did not work well together (n = 81). Women were more likely to rate a good care experience if they had a healthcare professional to talk to about their worries/fears for RM investigations (RRR 6.11 [95% CI: 1.41-26.41]), received a treatment plan (n = 70) (RRR 3.71 [95% CI: 1.28-10.71]), and received answers they could understand in a subsequent pregnancy (n = 97) (RRR 8 [95% CI: 0.95-67.13]).

conclusionsWhile overall experience of RM care was poor, we identified areas that could potentially improve people's RM care experiences - which have international relevance - such as information provision, supportive care, communication between healthcare professionals and people with RM, and care coordination between healthcare professionals across care settings.

Indexed as

Abortion, HabitualMaternal Health ServicesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIrelandMalePatient PreferencePregnancyCare qualityPatient-centred carePatient experiencePregnancy lossRecurrent miscarriage

Identifiers

PMID36997901
PMCPMC10064661
OpenAlexW4361238837

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.