References

Andrews LM, Allen H, Sheppard ZA, Baylis G, Wainwright TW. More than just ticking a box…how patient and public involvement improved the research design and funding application for a project to evaluate a cycling intervention for hip osteoarthritis. Res Involv Engagem. 2015; 1:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0013-8

Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C. Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy. 2002; 61:(2)213-36

Boote J, Barber R, Cooper C. Principles and indicators of successful consumer involvement in NHS research: results of a Delphi study and subgroup analysis. Health Policy. 2006; 75:(3)280-97

Bradwell P, Marr S. Making the most of collaboration: an international survey of public service co-design. Annual Review of Policy Design. 2017; 5:(1)1-27

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014; 17:(5)637-50 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Simera I Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines. BMJ Open. 2017; 7:(10) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016948

Buck D, Gamble C, Dudley L From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2014; 4:(12) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006400

Carolan S, De Visser RO. Employees’ perspectives on the facilitators and barriers to engaging with digital mental health in the workplace: a qualitative study. JMIR Ment Health. 2018; 5:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.9146

Coldridge L, Davies S. ‘Am I too emotional for this job?’ An exploration of student midwives’ experiences of coping with traumatic events in the labour ward. Midwifery. 2017; 45:1-6 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2016.11.008

Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 337

Elizabeth V. Another string to our bow: Participant writing as research method, Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum. Qualitative social research. 2008; 9:(1) https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-9.1.331

Fernald DH, Duclos CW. Enhance your team-based qualitative research. Ann Fam Med. Ann Fam Med. 2005; 3:(4)360-4 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.290

Goh YW, Sawang S, Oei TP. The Revised Transactional Model (RTM) of occupational stress and coping: an improved process approach. Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology. 2010; 3:13-20 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1375/ajop.3.1.13

Greene MJ. On the inside looking in: methodological insights and challenges in conducting qualitative insider research. The Qualitative Report. 2014; 19:(29)1-13

Greenhalgh T. How to Implement Evidence-Based Healthcare.Chichester: Wiley Blackwell; 2017

Hall LH, Johnson J, Watt I, Tsipa A, O’Connor DB. Healthcare staff wellbeing, burnout, and patient safety: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016; 11:(7) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159015

Briefing notes for researchers: involving the public in NHS, public health and social care research.Eastleigh: INVOLVE; 2012

Krämer T, Schneider A, Spieß E, Angerer P, Weigl M. Associations between job demands, work-related strain and perceived quality of care: a longitudinal study among hospital physicians. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016; 28:(6)824-9 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzw119

Lombardo B, Eyre C. Compassion fatigue: a nurse’s primer. Online J Issues Nurs. 2011; 16:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol16No01Man03

Mallari M, Grace M, Joseph D. Ethical frameworks for decision-making in nursing practice and research: an integrative review. DePaul Online Journal of Nursing Research. 2016;

Mockford C, Staniszewska S, Griffiths F, Herron-Marx S. The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012; 24:(1)28-38 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzr066

Morgan H, Thomson G, Crossland N, Dykes F, Hoddinott P Combining PPI with qualitative research to engage ‘harder-to-reach’ populations: service user groups as co-applicants on a platform study for a trial. Res Involv Engagem. 2016; 2:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-016-0023-1

Moss N, Daru J, Lanz D, Thangaratinam S, Khan KS. Involving pregnant women, mothers and members of the public to improve the quality of women’s health research. BJOG. 2017; 124:(3)362-5 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14419

Going the Extra Mile: improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research.London: NIHR; 2015

Better Births: Improving Outcomes of Maternity Services in England.London: NHS England; 2016

Palmer W, Brackwell L. A national audit of maternity services in England. BJOG. 2014; 121:(12)1458-61 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12973

Petit A, Stephen R. Supporting health visitors and fostering resilience: literature review.London: Institute of Health Visiting; 2015

Pezaro S. The case for developing an online intervention to support midwives in work-related psychological distress. Br J Midwifery. 2016; 24:(11)799-805 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2016.24.11.799

Pezaro SC. Securing the evidence and theory-based design of an online intervention designed to support midwives in work-related psychological distress. Journal of the International Society for Telemedicine and eHealth. 2018; 6:(1)

Pezaro S, Clyne W. Achieving consensus for the design and delivery of an online intervention to support midwives in work-related psychological distress: results from a Delphi study. JMIR Ment Health. 2016; 3:(3) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.5617

Pezaro S, Clyne W, Turner A, Fulton EA, Gerada C. ‘Midwives Overboard!’ Inside their hearts are breaking, their makeup may be flaking but their smile still stays on. Women Birth. 2016; 29:(3)e59-e66 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2015.10.006

Pezaro S, Clyne W, Fulton EA. A systematic mixed-methods review of interventions, outcomes and experiences for midwives and student midwives in work-related psychological distress. Midwifery. 2017; 50:163-73 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2017.04.003

Plotkin L. Support Overdue: Women’s experiences of maternity services.Lonodn: NCT and NFWI; 2017

Ridner SH. Psychological distress: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2004; 45:(5)536-45

Royal College Of Physicians. Work and wellbeing in the NHS: why staff health matters to patient care. 2015. https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/RCP-%20WorkWellbeingNHS.pdf (accessed 9 August 2018)

Soltani H, Low LK, Duxbury A, Schuiling KD. Global midwifery research priorities: an international survey. International Journal of Childbirth. 2016; 6:(1)5-18 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1891/2156-5287.6.1.5

Sorenson C, Bolick B, Wright K, Hamilton R. Understanding compassion fatigue in healthcare providers: a review of current literature. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2016; 48:(5)456-65 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12229

Staley K. ‘Is it worth doing?’ Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2015; 1:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0008-5

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017; 3:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2

Steen M, Manschot M, De Koning N. Benefits of co-design in service design projects. Int J Des. 2011; 5:(2)53-60

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007; 19:(6)349-57 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

Vincent CA, Coulter A. Patient safety: what about the patient?. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002; 11:(1)76-80

Ward DJ, Furber C, Tierney S, Swallow V. Using Framework Analysis in nursing research: a worked example. J Adv Nurs. 2013; 69:(11)2423-31 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12127

Childbearing women's experiences of midwives' workplace distress: Patient and public involvement

02 October 2018

Research

02 October 2018

Volume 26 · Issue 10

ISSN (print): 0969-4900

ISSN (online): 2052-4307

Abstract

Background

Some midwives experience work-related psychological distress. This can reduce the quality and safety of maternity services, yet there are few interventions to support midwives.

Aim

To explore and voice the perceptions of new mothers in relation to the barriers to receiving high-quality maternity care, the psychological wellbeing of midwives and the development and evaluation of an online intervention designed to support them. GRIPP2 reporting checklists were also used to demonstrate how patient and public involvement works in research.

Methods

A co-design approach was used in a discussion group to collect qualitative data from 10 participants. A framework approach was used for analysis.

Findings

Unique findings included midwives crying, becoming emotional and seeking support from service users. Overall, seven patient and public involvement outcomes relating to intervention development and data collection were identified.

Conclusion

Maternity service improvement strategies may only be wholly effective once they include the provision of effective midwifery workplace support.

The wellbeing of health professionals can be linked with the quality and safety of healthcare services (Hall et al, 2016; Royal College of Physicians, 2016). Midwives in particular can experience a range of work-related psychological distress and are more likely than other health professionals to report feeling pressured at work (Pezaro et al, 2015; National Maternity Review, 2016). The significance of this issue has been recognised, as workforce research is now listed as one of the most prominent global research priorities for the international midwifery community (Soltani et al, 2016).

In light of this, any work-related psychological distress that may be affecting the quality and safety of maternity care must be explored and addressed. Psychological distress can be defined as a unique, discomforting, emotional state experienced by an individual in response to a specific stressor or demand, which results in harm, either temporary or permanent, to the person (Ridner, 2004). In the case of defining work-related psychological distress, we propose that the ‘specific stressor’ would therefore need to be work-related. A recent report from the National Childbirth Trust (NCT) has explored women's experiences of maternity services and recommended that staff burnout be prevented and addressed (Plotkin, 2017). However, women's experiences of work-related psychological distress in midwifery populations specifically has yet to be explored as a research problem in need of an evidence-based solution.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Midwifery and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for midwives. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

Limited access to our clinical or professional articles
New content and clinical newsletter updates each month

Or continue by

Signing in with your registered email address

Patient and public involvement

PPI

Co-design

Occupational stress

Midwifery

Healthcare quality