Journal Article
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Effectiveness of interventions on occupational stress, health and well-being, performance, and job satisfaction for midwives: A systematic mixed methods review.

Women and Birth 2024 April 5
BACKGROUND: Work-related stress is high in midwifery with negative implications for midwives' health and performance. This systematic review therefore examined which stress management interventions (SMIs) are most effective at reducing occupational stress and improving midwives' health and well-being, performance, and job satisfaction.

METHODS: A systematic review included studies if they were: investigating midwives or student midwives; examining an individual- or organisation-level intervention; reporting the intervention effects on at least one outcome (e.g., job performance); peer-reviewed; and published in English. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted and data were presented by SMI level (i.e., individual vs. organisation) and modality type (e.g., mindfulness, care model). Sum codes were used to compare the effects of individual- and organisation-level SMIs on outcomes.

FINDINGS: From 2605 studies identified, 30 were eligible (18 individual- and 12 organisation-level SMIs). Eight studies were deemed low quality. While individual- and organisation-level SMIs were equally effective in improving job satisfaction and performance, there was a trend for organisation-level SMIs more effectively reducing work stress and improving health and well-being. Specific individual- (i.e., mindfulness, simulation training) and organisation-level (i.e., reflective groups, midwifery care models) SMIs were most beneficial.

CONCLUSION: It is recommended that health practitioners and policy makers implement interventions that target both individual- and organisation-levels to optimally support midwives' work stress, health, well-being, and performance. Notwithstanding these findings and implications, some studies had poor methodological quality; thus, future research should better follow intervention reporting guidelines.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app