Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background Pregnancy planning and preconception care benefit women, their children, and future generations. The London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) is a tool that can be used in antenatal care to identify women with unintended pregnancies who require improved access to such services. This tool was recently implemented into routine antenatal care in two maternity centres in New South Wales, Australia. This study explores midwives’ attitudes to the LMUP 12 months after it was introduced into the booking visit and their understanding of its application to their scope of practice.
Methods This is a qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews with midwives from two maternity care centres in Australia. All midwives performing antenatal booking visits were eligible to take part. Interviews were transcribed, analysed, and coded to define key themes. Recruitment ceased when thematic saturation was reached.
Results Ten midwives from two maternity centres were interviewed. Midwives support the inclusion of the LMUP into the booking visit and felt it was in their scope of practice to be using the tool. Time constraints, the impact of COVID-19 and the lack of structured referral pathways were identified as barriers to the implementation of the LMUP in routine care.
Conclusions Midwives support the inclusion of the LMUP into the antenatal booking visit and see that it falls within their scope of practice. Service barriers were identified at the individual, organisational and external context levels. These need to be addressed to enhance the potential of this tool.
- family planning services
- qualitative research
- reproductive health services
Data availability statement
No data are available. Due to the nature of the research, due to ethical restrictions further supporting data is not available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available. Due to the nature of the research, due to ethical restrictions further supporting data is not available.
Footnotes
Contributors All the authors were involved in study conceptualisation and design, data analysis and manuscript revision. KC is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor. KC collected data and prepared the manuscript, with MP, ED and KB contributing to the manuscript revisions.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.