Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39354405›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024

What are the mechanisms of effect of group antenatal care? A systematic realist review and synthesis of the literature.

Anita Mehay, Giordana Da Motta, Louise Hunter, Juliet Rayment, Meg Wiggins, Penny Haora, Christine McCourt, Angela Harden

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Improving Diversity in Recruitment: Lessons Learned During the REACH Pregnancy Circles Pilot Trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Anita MehaySchool of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, Myddelton Street, London, EC1R 1UW, UK. anita.mehay@city.ac.uk.
Giordana Da MottaSchool of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, Myddelton Street, London, EC1R 1UW, UK.
Louise HunterOxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
Juliet RaymentSchool of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, Myddelton Street, London, EC1R 1UW, UK.
Meg WigginsUniversity College London, London, UK.
Penny HaoraUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Christine McCourtSchool of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, Myddelton Street, London, EC1R 1UW, UK.
Angela HardenSchool of Health and Psychological Sciences, City, University of London, Myddelton Street, London, EC1R 1UW, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research RP-PG-1211-20015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is growing interest in the benefits of group models of antenatal care. Although clinical reviews exist, there have been few reviews that focus on the mechanisms of effect of this model.

methodsWe conducted a realist review using a systematic approach incorporating all data types (including non-research and audiovisual media), with synthesis along Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome (CIMO) configurations.

resultsA wide range of sources were identified, yielding 100 relevant sources in total (89 written and 11 audiovisual). Overall, there was no clear pattern of 'what works for whom, in what circumstances' although some studies have identified clinical benefits for those with more vulnerability or who are typically underserved by standard care. Findings revealed six interlinking mechanisms, including: social support, peer learning, active participation in health, health education and satisfaction or engagement with care. A further, relatively under-developed theory related to impact on professional practice. An overarching mechanism of empowerment featured across most studies but there was variation in how this was collectively or individually conceptualised and applied.

conclusionsMechanisms of effect are amplified in contexts where inequalities in access and delivery of care exist, but poor reporting of populations and contexts limited fuller exploration. We recommend future studies provide detailed descriptions of the population groups involved and that they give full consideration to theoretical underpinnings and contextual factors. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this realist review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42016036768).

Indexed as

Prenatal CareEmpowermentFemaleGroup ProcessesHealth EducationHumansPatient SatisfactionPregnancySocial SupportCenteringPregnancyGroup antenatal careGroup careMaternityMechanismsRealist review

Identifiers

PMID39354405
PMCPMC11446066

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.