IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i23-24p4225-4235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Midwives' use of best available evidence in practice: An integrative review

Author

Listed:
  • Annemarie De Leo
  • Sara Bayes
  • Sadie Geraghty
  • Janice Butt

Abstract

Aims and objectives To synthesise international research that relates to midwives' use of best available evidence in practice settings and identify key issues relating to the translation of latest evidence into everyday maternity care. Background Midwifery is a research‐informed profession. However, a gap persists in the translation of best available evidence into practice settings, compromising gold standard maternity care and delaying the translation of new knowledge into everyday practice. Design A five‐step integrative review approach, based on a series of articles published by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for conducting systematic reviews, was used to facilitate development of a search strategy, selection criteria and quality appraisal process, and the extraction and synthesis of data to inform an integrative review. Methods The databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Implementation Science Journal and Scopus were searched for relevant articles. The screening and quality appraisal process complied with the PRISMA 2009 checklist. Narrative analysis was used to develop sub‐categories and dimensions from the data, which were then synthesised to form two major categories that together answer the review question. Results The six articles reviewed report on midwives' use of best available evidence in Australia, the UK and Asia. Two major categories emerged that confirm that although midwifery values evidence‐based practice (EBP), evidence‐informed maternity care is not always employed in clinical settings. Additionally, closure of the evidence‐to‐practice gap in maternity care requires a multidimensional approach. Conclusion Collaborative partnerships between midwives and researchers are necessary to initiate strategies that support midwives' efforts to facilitate the timely movement of best available evidence into practice. Relevance to clinical practice Understanding midwives' use of best available evidence in practice will direct future efforts towards the development of mechanisms that facilitate the timely uptake of latest evidence by all maternity care providers working in clinical settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Annemarie De Leo & Sara Bayes & Sadie Geraghty & Janice Butt, 2019. "Midwives' use of best available evidence in practice: An integrative review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(23-24), pages 4225-4235, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:23-24:p:4225-4235
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15027
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15027?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. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    2. Ven Veeramah, 2016. "The use of evidenced‐based information by nurses and midwives to inform practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3-4), pages 340-350, February.
    3. Alessandro Liberati & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Cynthia Mulrow & Peter C Gøtzsche & John P A Ioannidis & Mike Clarke & P J Devereaux & Jos Kleijnen & David Moher, 2009. "The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-28, July.
    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. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.
    2. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Frank Peinemann & Ulrich Grouven & Nicolaus Kröger & Carmen Bartel & Max H Pittler & Stefan Lange, 2011. "First-Line Matched Related Donor Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Compared to Immunosuppressive Therapy in Acquired Severe Aplastic Anemia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Jonathan Kingsley & Aisling Bailey & Nooshin Torabi & Pauline Zardo & Suzanne Mavoa & Tonia Gray & Danielle Tracey & Philip Pettitt & Nicholas Zajac & Emily Foenander, 2019. "A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-12, September.
    5. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    6. Sibonokuhle Ndlovu, 2023. "Preparedness and Response to COVID-19 Disruptions and Learning Challenges for Students with Disabilities in South Africa: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    7. Abbas Mardani & Dalia Streimikiene & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Ahmad Jusoh & Habib Zare, 2017. "Application of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to Solve Environmental Sustainability Problems: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-65, October.
    8. Luísa Bandeira Lopes & João Albernaz Neves & João Botelho & Vanessa Machado & José João Mendes, 2021. "Regenerative Endodontic Procedures: An Umbrella Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-17, January.
    9. Gaspar, Rui & Yan, Zheng & Domingos, Samuel, 2019. "Extreme natural and man-made events and human adaptive responses mediated by information and communication technologies' use: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 125-135.
    10. Nicholas A. Kirk & Nicholas A. Cradock-Henry, 2022. "Land Management Change as Adaptation to Climate and Other Stressors: A Systematic Review of Decision Contexts Using Values-Rules-Knowledge," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, May.
    11. Timothy Noblet & John Marriott & Emma Graham-Clarke & Debra Shirley & Alison Rushton, 2018. "Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Abbas Mardani & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Jurgita Antucheviciene & Madjid Tavana & Romualdas Bausys & Othman Ibrahim, 2017. "Recent Fuzzy Generalisations of Rough Sets Theory: A Systematic Review and Methodological Critique of the Literature," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-33, October.
    13. Wen-Hsiu Yeh & Ya-Ju Ju & Yu-Ting Liu & Ting-Yi Wang, 2022. "Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Neurofeedback Training of Theta Activity on Working Memory and Episodic Memory in Healthy Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-14, September.
    14. Gourzoulidis, George & Kourlaba, Georgia & Stafylas, Panagiotis & Giamouzis, Gregory & Parissis, John & Maniadakis, Nikolaos, 2017. "Association between copayment, medication adherence and outcomes in the management of patients with diabetes and heart failure," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(4), pages 363-377.
    15. Cristina Chifor & Iulia D. Arion & Vlad I. Isarie & Felix H. Arion, 2022. "A Systematic Literature Review on European Food Quality Schemes in Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Snyder, Hannah, 2019. "Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 333-339.
    17. Pineros-Leano, María & Parchment, Tyrone M. & Calvo, Rocío, 2023. "Family interventions to improve mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes among Latinx youth: A systematic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    18. Teresa Loda & Rebecca Erschens & Hannah Loenneker & Katharina E Keifenheim & Christoph Nikendei & Florian Junne & Stephan Zipfel & Anne Herrmann-Werner, 2019. "Cognitive and social congruence in peer-assisted learning – A scoping review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, September.
    19. Emma N Bermingham & David G Thomas & Nicholas J Cave & Penelope J Morris & Richard F Butterwick & Alexander J German, 2014. "Energy Requirements of Adult Dogs: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Diego Tlapa & Ignacio Franco-Alucano & Jorge Limon-Romero & Yolanda Baez-Lopez & Guilherme Tortorella, 2022. "Lean, Six Sigma, and Simulation: Evidence from Healthcare Interventions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-25, December.

    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:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:23-24:p:4225-4235. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.