IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a better understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care: A systematic scoping review

Author

Listed:
  • Bahareh Goodarzi
  • Annika Walker
  • Lianne Holten
  • Linda Schoonmade
  • Pim Teunissen
  • François Schellevis
  • Ank de Jonge

Abstract

Globally, millions of women and their children suffer due to preventable morbidity and mortality, associated with both underuse and overuse of maternal and newborn care. An effective system of risk selection that differentiates between what care should be provided and who should provide it is a global necessity to ensure women and children receive appropriate care, at the right place and the right time. Poor conceptualization of risk selection impedes evaluation and comparison of models of risk selection across various settings, which is necessary to improve maternal and newborn care. We conducted a scoping review to enhance the understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care. We included 210 papers, published over the past four decades, originating from 24 countries. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified three main dimensions of risk selection: (1) risk selection as an organisational measure to optimally align women’s and children’s needs and resources, (2) risk selection as a practice to detect and assess risk and to make decisions about the delivery of care, and (3) risk selection as a tool to ensure safe care. We found that these three dimensions have three themes in common: risk selection (1) is viewed as both requiring and providing regulation, (2) has a provider centred focus and (3) aims to avoid underuse of care. Due to the methodological challenges of contextual diversity, the concept of risk selection needs clear indicators that capture the complexity of care to make cross-setting evaluation and comparison of risk selection possible. Moreover, a comprehensive understanding of risk selection needs to consider access disparity, women’s needs, and unnecessary medicalization.

Suggested Citation

  • Bahareh Goodarzi & Annika Walker & Lianne Holten & Linda Schoonmade & Pim Teunissen & François Schellevis & Ank de Jonge, 2020. "Towards a better understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care: A systematic scoping review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234252
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234252
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234252
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234252&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234252?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cacace, Mirella & Ettelt, Stefanie & Mays, Nicholas & Nolte, Ellen, 2013. "Assessing quality in cross-country comparisons of health systems and policies: Towards a set of generic quality criteria," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 156-162.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. FIASO Federazione Asl e Ospedali, 2017. "Knowledge Management e modelli strategici in sanit?. Una review strutturata della letteratura," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(103), pages 73-91.
    2. Behrendt, Katja & Groene, Oliver, 2016. "Mechanisms and effects of public reporting of surgeon outcomes: A systematic review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1151-1161.
    3. FIASO Federazione Asl e Ospedali, 2017. "Sviluppo di standard di erogazione dell?attivit? ambulatoriale per la riorganizzazione di un?Azienda Sanitaria Locale," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(103), pages 95-115.
    4. Franziska Laporte Uribe & Oscar Arteaga & Walter Bruchhausen & Gary Cheung & Sarah Cullum & Alejandra Fuentes-García & Claudia Miranda Castillo & Ngaire Kerse & Ray Kirk & Marama Muru-Lanning & Rodrig, 2021. "Dementia and COVID-19 in Chile, New Zealand and Germany: A Research Agenda for Cross-Country Learning for Resilience in Health Care Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Matthias Fischer & Harald Heinrichs, 2018. "Dimensions, Dialectic, Discourse. Three Political Perspectives on the Sustainability of the German Healthcare System," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, July.
    6. YongChan Kim & Min Jae Park & Erdal Atukeren, 2020. "Healthcare and Welfare Policy Efficiency in 34 Developing Countries in Asia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-21, June.
    7. Maier, Claudia B. & Batenburg, Ronald & Birch, Stephen & Zander, Britta & Elliott, Robert & Busse, Reinhard, 2018. "Health workforce planning: which countries include nurse practitioners and physician assistants and to what effect?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(10), pages 1085-1092.
    8. Hamza Garashi & Douglas Steinke & Ellen Schafheutle, 2022. "Strengths and Weaknesses of the Pharmacovigilance Systems in Three Arab Countries: A Mixed-Methods Study Using the WHO Pharmacovigilance Indicators," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-19, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234252. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.