BACKGROUND: There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation.
OBJECTIVES: 1. To describe types of breastfeeding support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. 2. To examine the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding support interventions in terms of whether they offered only breastfeeding support or breastfeeding support in combination with a wider maternal and child health intervention ('breastfeeding plus' support). 3. To examine the effectiveness of the following intervention characteristics on breastfeeding support: a. type of support (e.g. face-to-face, telephone, digital technologies, group or individual support, proactive or reactive); b. intensity of support (i.e. number of postnatal contacts); c. person delivering the intervention (e.g. healthcare professional, lay person); d. to examine whether the impact of support varied between high- and low-and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes results of searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) (11 May 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. Support could be provided face-to-face, over the phone or via digital technologies. All studies had to meet the trustworthiness criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods. Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and study trustworthiness. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 116 trials of which 103 contribute data to the analyses. In total more than 98,816 mother-infant pairs were included. Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that 'breastfeeding only' support probably reduced the number of women stopping breastfeeding for all primary outcomes: stopping any breastfeeding at six months (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97); stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93); stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97); and stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90). Similar findings were reported for the secondary breastfeeding outcomes except for any breastfeeding at two months and 12 months when the evidence was uncertain if 'breastfeeding only' support helped reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding. The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' was less consistent. For primary outcomes there was some evidence that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably reduced the number of women stopping any breastfeeding (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97, moderate-certainty evidence) or exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90). 'Breastfeeding plus' interventions may have a beneficial effect on reducing the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). The evidence suggests that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably results in little to no difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08, moderate-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes, it was uncertain if 'breastfeeding plus' support helped reduce the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding at any time points. There were no consistent findings emerging from the narrative synthesis of the non-breastfeeding outcomes (maternal satisfaction with care, maternal satisfaction with feeding method, infant morbidity, and maternal mental health), except for a possible reduction of diarrhoea in intervention infants. We considered the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Blinding of participants and personnel is not feasible in such interventions and as studies utilised self-report breastfeeding data, there is also a risk of bias in outcome assessment. We conducted meta-regression to explore substantial heterogeneity for the primary outcomes using the following categories: person providing care; mode of delivery; intensity of support; and income status of country. It is possible that moderate levels (defined as 4-8 visits) of 'breastfeeding only' support may be associated with a more beneficial effect on exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and six months. 'Breastfeeding only' support may also be more effective in reducing women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months compared to women in high-income countries (HICs). However, no other differential effects were found and thus heterogeneity remains largely unexplained. The meta-regression suggested that there were no differential effects regarding person providing support or mode of delivery, however, power was limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When 'breastfeeding only' support is offered to women, the duration and in particular, the exclusivity of breastfeeding is likely to be increased. Support may also be more effective in reducing the number of women stopping breastfeeding at three to four months compared to later time points. For 'breastfeeding plus' interventions the evidence is less certain. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Support can also be offered face-to-face, via telephone or digital technologies, or a combination and may be more effective when delivered on a schedule of four to eight visits. Further work is needed to identify components of the effective interventions and to deliver interventions on a larger scale.
PURPOSE: The authors conducted a systematic review of the medical literature to determine the factors most strongly associated with localizing primary care physicians (PCPs) in underserved urban or rural areas of the United States.
METHOD: In November 2015, the authors searched databases (MEDLINE, ERIC, SCOPUS) and Google Scholar to identify published peer-reviewed studies that focused on PCPs and reported practice location outcomes that included U.S. underserved urban or rural areas. Studies focusing on practice intentions, nonphysicians, patient panel composition, or retention/turnover were excluded. They screened 4,130 titles and reviewed 284 full-text articles.
RESULTS: Seventy-two observational or case-control studies met inclusion criteria. These were categorized into four broad themes aligned with prior literature: 19 studies focused on physician characteristics, 13 on financial factors, 20 on medical school curricula/programs, and 20 on graduate medical education (GME) programs. Studies found significant relationships between physician race/ethnicity and language and practice in underserved areas. Multiple studies demonstrated significant associations between financial factors (e.g., debt or incentives) and underserved or rural practice, independent of preexisting trainee characteristics. There was also evidence that medical school and GME programs were effective in training PCPs who locate in underserved areas.
CONCLUSIONS: Both financial incentives and special training programs could be used to support trainees with the personal characteristics associated with practicing in underserved or rural areas. Expanding and replicating medical school curricula and programs proven to produce clinicians who practice in underserved urban or rural areas should be a strategic investment for medical education and future research.
BACKGROUND: There is a workforce crisis in primary care. Previous research has looked at the reasons underlying recruitment and retention problems, but little research has looked at what works to improve recruitment and retention. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate interventions and strategies used to recruit and retain primary care doctors internationally.
METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2015. Articles assessing interventions aimed at recruiting or retaining doctors in high income countries, applicable to primary care doctors were included. No restrictions on language or year of publication. The first author screened all titles and abstracts and a second author screened 20 %. Data extraction was carried out by one author and checked by a second. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Fifty-one studies assessing 42 interventions were retrieved. Interventions were categorised into thirteen groups: financial incentives (n = 11), recruiting rural students (n = 6), international recruitment (n = 4), rural or primary care focused undergraduate placements (n = 3), rural or underserved postgraduate training (n = 3), well-being or peer support initiatives (n = 3), marketing (n = 2), mixed interventions (n = 5), support for professional development or research (n = 5), retainer schemes (n = 4), re-entry schemes (n = 1), specialised recruiters or case managers (n = 2) and delayed partnerships (n = 2). Studies were of low methodological quality with no RCTs and only 15 studies with a comparison group. Weak evidence supported the use of postgraduate placements in underserved areas, undergraduate rural placements and recruiting students to medical school from rural areas. There was mixed evidence about financial incentives. A marketing campaign was associated with lower recruitment.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review of interventions to improve recruitment and retention of primary care doctors. Although the evidence base for recruiting and care doctors is weak and more high quality research is needed, this review found evidence to support undergraduate and postgraduate placements in underserved areas, and selective recruitment of medical students. Other initiatives covered may have potential to improve recruitment and retention of primary care practitioners, but their effectiveness has not been established.
BACKGROUND: High maternal mortality and morbidity persist, in large part due to inadequate access to timely and quality health care. Attitudes and behaviours of maternal health care providers (MHCPs) influence health care seeking and quality of care.
METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched for studies from January 1990 to December 2014. Included studies report on types or impacts of MHCP attitudes and behaviours towards their clients, or the factors influencing these attitudes and behaviours. Attitudes and behaviours mentioned in relation to HIV infection, and studies of health providers outside the formal health system, such as traditional birth attendants, were excluded.
FINDINGS: Of 967 titles and 412 abstracts screened, 125 full-text papers were reviewed and 81 included. Around two-thirds used qualitative methods and over half studied public-sector facilities. Most studies were in Africa (n = 55), followed by Asia and the Pacific (n = 17). Fifty-eight studies covered only negative attitudes or behaviours, with a minority describing positive provider behaviours, such as being caring, respectful, sympathetic and helpful. Negative attitudes and behaviours commonly entailed verbal abuse (n = 45), rudeness such as ignoring or ridiculing patients (n = 35), or neglect (n = 32). Studies also documented physical abuse towards women, absenteeism or unavailability of providers, corruption, lack of regard for privacy, poor communication, unwillingness to accommodate traditional practices, and authoritarian or frightening attitudes. These behaviours were influenced by provider workload, patients' attitudes and behaviours, provider beliefs and prejudices, and feelings of superiority among MHCPs. Overall, negative attitudes and behaviours undermined health care seeking and affected patient well-being.
CONCLUSIONS: The review documented a broad range of negative MHCP attitudes and behaviours affecting patient well-being, satisfaction with care and care seeking. Reported negative patient interactions far outweigh positive ones. The nature of the factors which influence health worker attitudes and behaviours suggests that strengthening health systems, and workforce development, including in communication and counselling skills, are important. Greater attention is required to the attitudes and behaviours of MHCPs within efforts to improve maternal health, for the sake of both women and health care providers.
BACKGROUND: Current literature systematically reports that interventions to attract and retain health workers in underserved areas need to be context specific but rarely defines what that means. In this systematic review, we try to summarize and analyse context factors influencing the implementation of interventions to attract and retain rural health workers.
METHODS: We searched online databases, relevant websites and reference lists of selected literature to identify studies on compulsory rural service programmes and financial incentives. Forty studies were selected. Information regarding context factors at macro, meso and micro levels was extracted and synthesized.
RESULTS: Macro-level context factors include political, economic and social factors. Meso-level factors include health system factors such as maldistribution of health workers, growing private sector, decentralization and health financing. Micro-level factors refer to the policy implementation process including funding sources, administrative agency, legislation process, monitoring and evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: Macro-, meso- and micro-level context factors can play different roles in agenda setting, policy formulation and implementation of health interventions to attract and retain rural health workers. These factors should be systematically considered in the different stages of policy process and evaluation.
Introduction: There is a globally observed unequal distribution of dental and other health practitioners between urban and rural areas in OECD countries. Dental practitioners provide important primary healthcare services to rural populations. Workforce shortages and stability issues in underserved areas can have negative effects on rural communities. Strategies used to fix the dental practitioner workforce maldistribution need to be investigated. Method: The study had primary focus on Australia and included relevant international literature. Databases used were PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Informit, Web of Science, Scopus and Summon. Search terms included dental practitioner, rural, remote, retention, recruitment and strategies. Results: Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles described a total of eight different positive factors and 12 negative factors towards rural practice. The positive factors related to the nature of the type of clinical work being a ‘challenge’, close social and professional support networks, enjoyment of rural lifestyle and successful integration into the rural community. The negative factors mentioned included social and professional isolation, workload and type of clinical work, access to further education opportunities, access to facilities, education for children and job opportunities for a partner, and inability to integrate into the rural community. The articles that analysed recruitment incentives described three strategies currently used to influence recruitment, all of which were financial or contractual in nature. Articles mentioning retention factors described seven long-term retention motivators; of these, six of them were personal reasons. The most commonly mentioned motivational fact or for recruitment and retention of the rural dental practitioner workforce was the effect of prior rural exposure for dental practitioners. Conclusions: The results of this review indicate that the most important influences on rural dental practitioner workforce recruitment and retention were a combination of financial reimbursement and personal reasons. There was also a large influence of rural medical workforce research on untested assumptions and drivers of the rural dental practitioner workforce. The high recruitment rate compared with the low retention rate indicates that current strategies were not effective in addressing rural dental practitioner workforce shortages in the long term.
OBJECTIVE: To identify mechanisms for the successful implementation of support strategies for health-care practitioners in rural and remote contexts.
DESIGN: This is an integrative review and thematic synthesis of the empirical literature that examines support interventions for health-care practitioners in rural and remote contexts.
RESULTS: This review includes 43 papers that evaluated support strategies for the rural and remote health workforce. Interventions were predominantly training and education programmes with limited evaluations of supervision and mentoring interventions. The mechanisms associated with successful outcomes included: access to appropriate and adequate training, skills and knowledge for the support intervention; accessible and adequate resources; active involvement of stakeholders in programme design, implementation and evaluation; a needs analysis prior to the intervention; external support, organisation, facilitation and/or coordination of the programme; marketing of the programme; organisational commitment; appropriate mode of delivery; leadership; and regular feedback and evaluation of the programme.
CONCLUSION: Through a synthesis of the literature, this research has identified a number of mechanisms that are associated with successful support interventions for health-care practitioners in rural and remote contexts. This research utilised a methodology developed for studying complex interventions in response to the perceived limitations of traditional systematic reviews. This synthesis of the evidence will provide decision-makers at all levels with a collection of mechanisms that can assist the development and implementation of support strategies for staff in rural and remote contexts.
Journal»Canadian journal of rural medicine : the official journal of the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada = Journal canadien de la médecine rurale : le journal officiel de la Société de médecine rurale du Canada
INTRODUCTION: Both Canada and Australia are facing severe shortages of primary health workers, and these shortages are exacerbated in rural and remote communities. This literature review highlights similarities and explores the factors that serve to attract and retain family practitioners in underserved regions of Canada and Australia. METHODS: We used MEDLINE on OvidSP to review the literature between Jan. 1, 2000, and June 30, 2012. We excluded sources if the primary objective did not consider recruitment or retention of general practitioners. RESULTS: We found a total of 114 sources, 28 of which were excluded, leaving 86 sources for review. We organized results according to 5 life stages of family physicians in rural practice and graded the literature according to the strength of the methodology and the relevance of the findings. We chronologically categorized Canadian and Australian literature that discussed recruitment and retention of family practitioners into rural practice. CONCLUSION: Various factors that pertain to each life stage of a family physician have been shown to positively correlate with the eventual decision to commence and remain practising in rural areas. Training programs should be better structured to attract candidates who are more likely to enter rural practice. Policy-makers should be mindful of these findings, because improvements in retention will deliver large financial savings.
INTRODUCTION: Increasingly medical students undertake clinical training in distributed learning environments. The driving factor for this is predominantly to address medical workforce shortages. In these environments students are often taught by private practitioners, residents, house staff and registrars, as well as faculty. Through a mix of short- and long-term preceptorships, clerkships and rotations, medical students are exposed to a wider range of preceptors, mentors and role models than has traditionally been the case. The aim of this systematic review was to understand if and how medical students' career choices are influenced by their interactions with preceptors.
METHOD: A search of Ovid Medline, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Eric and CIHNAL was undertaken. The search was structured around the key terms: Medical Student, Career Choice and Preceptor, and variants of these terms. Search limits were set to English-language publications between 1995 and 2010.
RESULTS: A total of 36 articles met the selection criteria from the 533 citations sourced from the search. Required preceptorships as short as 3 weeks' duration influence the career choice of students when they rate the preceptor as a high quality teacher. Preceptors who are judged (by students) as high quality teachers have the greatest influence on student career choice by up to four-fold. When students judged a preceptor as being a negative role model, a poor teacher or lacking discipline specific knowledge they will turn away from that field. The positive influence of relationships between preceptors and students on career choice is strongest where there is continuity of preceptors, continuity of care, and continuity of patient interactions. The longer the duration of the preceptorship the greater the influence on student career choice, particularly in primary cares environments.
CONCLUSION: This review adds to the literature by identifying how differing components and combinations of components of a preceptorship influence medical student career choices. Multiple components of the preceptorship combined have a greater influence. In free choice, longitudinal integrated clerkships' duration of placement and continuity relationships with preceptors have the greatest influence on medical students in pursuing a primary care career. This information informs medical schools, curriculum designers and policy-makers in reforming medical education to address workforce shortages.
PURPOSE: To understand the educational goals of projects described as "service learning" or "community-based medical education" and to learn how relationships between medical schools and community members are discussed in these projects.
METHOD: In 2008, the authors performed a systematic qualitative content analysis of 57 articles, published since 1990, that addressed community placements for U.S. medical students. After the initial analysis, the academic-based authors conveyed their findings to their community partner and coauthor, received input on relevance and priority of themes, and then refined their analysis accordingly.
RESULTS: The authors identified five main findings: (1) Considerable heterogeneity existed across projects, (2) although medical schools aimed to improve the health of the community, they did not routinely involve community members in the identification of local health priorities, (3) educators were enthusiastic about community-based education as a method for teaching complicated ideas such as social determinants of health, (4) many authors emphasized community placements as being equivalent to traditional curricula, and (5) the articles did not emphasize the concept of reciprocal knowledge transfer.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors found little emphasis on the reciprocal nature of partnerships between communities and medical schools. They propose that the principle of community partnership within medical education could train a cohort of medical students prepared to practice in the rapidly changing health care environment-one that now includes an important new agenda of community accountability.
There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant's diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation.
OBJECTIVES:
1. To describe types of breastfeeding support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. 2. To examine the effectiveness of different types of breastfeeding support interventions in terms of whether they offered only breastfeeding support or breastfeeding support in combination with a wider maternal and child health intervention ('breastfeeding plus' support). 3. To examine the effectiveness of the following intervention characteristics on breastfeeding support: a. type of support (e.g. face-to-face, telephone, digital technologies, group or individual support, proactive or reactive); b. intensity of support (i.e. number of postnatal contacts); c. person delivering the intervention (e.g. healthcare professional, lay person); d. to examine whether the impact of support varied between high- and low-and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes results of searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) (11 May 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care. Support could be provided face-to-face, over the phone or via digital technologies. All studies had to meet the trustworthiness criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods. Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and study trustworthiness. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS:
This updated review includes 116 trials of which 103 contribute data to the analyses. In total more than 98,816 mother-infant pairs were included. Moderate-certainty evidence indicated that 'breastfeeding only' support probably reduced the number of women stopping breastfeeding for all primary outcomes: stopping any breastfeeding at six months (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.89 to 0.97); stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93); stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97); and stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90). Similar findings were reported for the secondary breastfeeding outcomes except for any breastfeeding at two months and 12 months when the evidence was uncertain if 'breastfeeding only' support helped reduce the number of women stopping breastfeeding. The evidence for 'breastfeeding plus' was less consistent. For primary outcomes there was some evidence that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably reduced the number of women stopping any breastfeeding (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97, moderate-certainty evidence) or exclusive breastfeeding at six months (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90). 'Breastfeeding plus' interventions may have a beneficial effect on reducing the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). The evidence suggests that 'breastfeeding plus' support probably results in little to no difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08, moderate-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes, it was uncertain if 'breastfeeding plus' support helped reduce the number of women stopping any or exclusive breastfeeding at any time points. There were no consistent findings emerging from the narrative synthesis of the non-breastfeeding outcomes (maternal satisfaction with care, maternal satisfaction with feeding method, infant morbidity, and maternal mental health), except for a possible reduction of diarrhoea in intervention infants. We considered the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Blinding of participants and personnel is not feasible in such interventions and as studies utilised self-report breastfeeding data, there is also a risk of bias in outcome assessment. We conducted meta-regression to explore substantial heterogeneity for the primary outcomes using the following categories: person providing care; mode of delivery; intensity of support; and income status of country. It is possible that moderate levels (defined as 4-8 visits) of 'breastfeeding only' support may be associated with a more beneficial effect on exclusive breastfeeding at 4-6 weeks and six months. 'Breastfeeding only' support may also be more effective in reducing women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) stopping exclusive breastfeeding at six months compared to women in high-income countries (HICs). However, no other differential effects were found and thus heterogeneity remains largely unexplained. The meta-regression suggested that there were no differential effects regarding person providing support or mode of delivery, however, power was limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
When 'breastfeeding only' support is offered to women, the duration and in particular, the exclusivity of breastfeeding is likely to be increased. Support may also be more effective in reducing the number of women stopping breastfeeding at three to four months compared to later time points. For 'breastfeeding plus' interventions the evidence is less certain. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Support can also be offered face-to-face, via telephone or digital technologies, or a combination and may be more effective when delivered on a schedule of four to eight visits. Further work is needed to identify components of the effective interventions and to deliver interventions on a larger scale.
