Scoping review maps organisational models of midwifery-led care, highlighting implications for adaptation across health systems.
<ns3:p>Objective To map and characterize organisational models of midwifery-led care across healthcare systems, identifying their organisational arrangements and core and adaptable components to inform cross-country comparison and contextual adaptation. Introduction Midwifery-led care models are increasingly recognized as effective approaches to improving maternal and newborn outcomes and women’s experiences of care while promoting continuity of care, person-centred maternity services, and sustainable health systems. However, substantial heterogeneity exists in how these models are organised, implemented, and integrated across different health systems. A systematic mapping of organisational arrangements and their contextual conditions is needed to support evidence-informed adaptation and implementation across diverse settings. Inclusion criteria This review will consider sources describing organisational models of midwifery-led care across antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal contexts globally. Midwifery-led care is defined as models in which midwives hold primary clinical and organisational responsibility for coordinating and delivering maternity care, including referral to medical services when required. Both peer-reviewed and grey literature sources will be included. Methods This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, complemented by structured grey literature searches of governmental and professional sources. Two independent reviewers will screen and extract data using a structured tool informed by the Intervention Component Analysis framework. Findings will be synthesized through descriptive mapping and comparative analysis of organisational models. Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/DV6QB</ns3:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lopes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: