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

Anchors, Zoe; Arnold, Rachel; Bressington, Catherine; Burnard, Sara; Moreton, Annette; Moore, Lee

Abstract

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.

• Journal Article Type: Review
• Acceptance Date: Feb 12, 2024
• Online Publication Date: Apr 4, 2024
• Publication Date: Sep 1, 2024
• Deposit Date: Mar 11, 2024
• Publicly Available Date: Apr 12, 2024
• Journal: Women and Birth
• Print ISSN: 1871-5192
• Publisher: Elsevier
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 37
• Issue: 5
• Article Number: 101589
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2024.02.005
• Public URL: https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/11729278