BackgroundWhat constitutes respectful maternity care (RMC) operationally in research and programme implementation is often variable.ObjectivesTo develop a conceptualisation of RMC.Search strategyKey databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health Library, grey literature, and reference lists of relevant studies.Selection criteriaPrimary qualitative studies focusing on care occurring during labour, childbirth, and/or immediately postpartum in health facilities, without any restrictions on locations or publication date.Data collection and analysisA combined inductive and deductive approach was used to synthesise the data; the GRADE CERQual approach was used to assess the level of confidence in review findings.Main resultsSixty‐seven studies from 32 countries met our inclusion criteria. Twelve domains of RMC were synthesised: being free from harm and mistreatment; maintaining privacy and confidentiality; preserving women's dignity; prospective provision of information and seeking of informed consent; ensuring continuous access to family and community support; enhancing quality of physical environment and resources; providing equitable maternity care; engaging with effective communication; respecting women's choices that strengthen their capabilities to give birth; availability of competent and motivated human resources; provision of efficient and effective care; and continuity of care. Globally, women's perspectives of what constitutes RMC are quite consistent.ConclusionsThis review presents an evidence‐based typology of RMC in health facilities globally, and demonstrates that the concept is broader than a reduction of disrespectful care or mistreatment of women during childbirth. Innovative approaches should be developed and tested to integrate RMC as a routine component of quality maternal and newborn care programmes.Tweetable abstractUnderstanding respectful maternity care – synthesis of evidence from 67 qualitative studies.

Guideline developers are increasingly dealing with more difficult decisions concerning whether to recommend complex interventions in complex and highly variable health systems. There is greater recognition that both quantitative and qualitative evidence can be combined in a mixed-method synthesis and that this can be helpful in understanding how complexity impacts on interventions in specific contexts. This paper aims to clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions, synthesis methods and opportunities to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems. Three case studies of guidelines developed by WHO, which incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence, are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and evidence. Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Consideration is given to the opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence. Recommendations are made concerning the future development of methods to better address questions in systematic reviews and guidelines that adopt a complexity perspective.

No abstract

When making decisions about complex interventions, guideline development groups need to factor in the sociocultural acceptability of an intervention, as well as contextual factors that impact on the feasibility of that intervention. Qualitative evidence synthesis offers one method of exploring these issues. This paper considers the extent to which current methods of question formulation are meeting this challenge. It builds on a rapid review of 38 different frameworks for formulating questions. To be useful, a question framework should recognise context (as setting, environment or context); acknowledge the criticality of different stakeholder perspectives (differentiated from the target population); accommodate elements of time/timing and place; be sensitive to qualitative data (eg, eliciting themes or findings). None of the identified frameworks satisfied all four of these criteria. An innovative question framework, PerSPEcTiF, is proposed and retrospectively applied to a published WHO guideline for a complex intervention. Further testing and evaluation of the PerSPEcTiF framework is required.