4.6 Review

Systematic mixed-methods review of interventions, outcomes and experiences for imprisoned pregnant women

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 71, 期 7, 页码 1451-1463

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jan.12605

关键词

babies; birth; experiences; interventions; maternity care; midwifery; nursing; pregnant; prison; systematic mixed-methods review

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsTo review published studies reporting maternity experiences and outcomes for pregnant incarcerated women and their babies. BackgroundNumbers of women in prison have increased in many countries. Imprisoned women who are pregnant are particularly vulnerable and marginalised. Little is known about their maternity care experiences, or outcomes. DesignSystematic mixed-methods review using a segregated approach. Data sourcesThe Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE Psych INFO and PubMed were searched using the terms mother' and prison', (January 1995-July 2012). From July 2012-May 2014 possible new studies were identified through scrutiny of 50 relevant journal contents pages via Zetoc. ResultsSeven studies met the review criteria and quality standards, all from the USA or UK. Four of the studies were quantitative; two were qualitative; and one used mixed-methods. None reported the outcomes of an intervention. Examination of the quantitative data identified a complex picture of potential harms and benefits for babies born in prison. Qualitative data revealed the unique needs of childbearing women in prison, as they continuously negotiate being an inmate, becoming a mother, complex social histories and the threat of losing their baby, all coalescing with opportunities for transformation offered by pregnancy. ConclusionsThere is very limited published data on the experiences and outcomes of childbearing women in prison. There appear to be no good quality intervention studies examining the effectiveness of interventions to improve well-being in the short or longer term for these women and their babies.

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

4.6
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