BACKGROUND:
Childbearing people struggle to access health care postnatally. Worldwide, 30% do not receive postnatal care in part due to staff shortages, financial constraints and fragmented services. Traditional models of individualized postnatal care are outdated, costly and may not support socially disadvantaged parents at higher risk. Group postnatal care (GPNC) is an alternative to one-to-one care, providing health assessment by a health care professional with collective information sharing, education and peer social support. Implementing this requires an evidence- and user-informed approach.

OBJECTIVES:
We aimed to understand the nature and extent of evidence on implementation, effectiveness and appropriateness of GPNC models and its interpretation by key interest holders in a local hospital setting.

METHODS:
A rapid scoping review design was utilized following standardized processes. Eligible studies focused on GPNC provision, contained implementation data and were in English or translatable. Implementation data were extracted using the TIDieR framework and narratively synthesized using SWiM guidelines. Two in-person consultation meetings were attended by a range of midwives, physicians, hospital volunteers, board members, researchers, and former patients. Scoping review findings were presented and nominal group technique used to determine collective content, processes and evaluation indicators for a local GPNC program.

RESULTS:
We identified 15 studies of GPNC, all of which were offered to small groups. Program onset, duration and frequency varied across studies. Acceptability was most often evaluated positively. After presenting these findings, interest holders indicated that the program should commence two weeks postnatally, run every two weeks for two to three months, with an option to invite partners into selected sessions. Additional health discussion topics not in the literature were also identified.

CONCLUSIONS:
The co-production approach allowed the consideration and tailoring of research evidence to the local health service context.

KEY MESSAGE:
Integrating co-production into evidence synthesis may make findings more contextually relevant. Poster session 1 (Group A)