3.8 Review

The Needs of Women Who Have Experienced Maternal Near Miss: A Systematic Review of Literature

期刊

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_77_19

关键词

Childbirth; maternal morbidity; maternal near miss; pregnancy; systematic review

类别

资金

  1. Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Maternal Near Miss (MNM) event is associated with emotional, psychological, and social effects on women. Determining the needs of women with these experiences is the key to programming for providing high-quality care and reducing its burden. Hence, this study was conducted to determine the needs of women who have experienced MNM. Materials and Methods: In this literature systematic review, to achieve the intended information, articles published in Web of Science and PubMed databases were systematically searched. The search strategy focused on three keywords or phrases: maternal morbidity OR maternal near miss AND needs. Publication date was all relevant articles before 2019, and publication language was restricted to English. Article search was conducted by two independent reviewers. After the primary search, 2140 articles were found. Eventually, 77 articles, including 20 qualitative studies and 57 quantitative studies, were enrolled for final evaluation. Results: According to the results, the needs of these women could be categorized into six groups of Management and care needs of health system, Educational needs of health system, Follow up and continuity of care at the primary care level, Need to develop a physical, psychological and social of care packages, Social support, and Psychosocial support and counseling. Conclusions: The near-miss events change the mothers' living conditions, and therefore, they need to receive special support, given the difficult conditions they are undergoing. It is necessary that a supportive program be designed to follow-up MNM after the discharge to be run by the primary care team.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据