Midwifery continuity of care: Potentiality of midwives adherence to the new model of care
Abstract
Background: The midwifery continuity of care is gaining more attention, and the WHO recommends the use of its models to provide antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care in a setting where effective midwifery programme exists. However, in many countries, implementation of continuity of care model has been challenging for midwives.
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to assess the potentiality of midwives adherence to midwifery continuity of care as a new model of care.
Method: The research is descriptive that adopted cross-sectional design. The population of the study was the midwives serving in antenatal clinic (ANC), maternity and labour units. The instrument for data collection was researcher made, self-administered questionnaire. Census sampling was used in taking the entire midwives of the units as the subjects of the study. The results of the study were presented in frequencies and percentages, with Chi-square as a statistical tool for inferential analysis.
Results: Generally, 46.3% of the respondents were having good potentiality, 44.8% were having poor potentiality, and only 9.0% were having very good potentiality. 56.7% of the respondents with 0-5 years of experience were having poor potentiality, in contrast with 27.3% in respondents with >15 years of experience. 34.6% and 53.7% of the respondents that were midwives and those that were nurse-midwives in specialty respectively were having good potentiality to MCC adherence. There is no significant association between respondents’ years of experience and their potentiality to MCC adherence, P > 0.05. There is no significant association between respondents’ specialty and their potentiality to MCC adherence, P > 0.05.
Conclusion: The respondents of this study had a moderate potentiality to MCC adherence. The possibility of midwives adherence to MCC can be improved if it is introduced into the system with some modifications and flexibilities; and when the midwives realise its positive impact on maternal and new-born health.
Keywords
References
Blencowe, H., Cousens, S., Bianchi, J.F., Say, L., Chou, D., Mathers, C., Hogan, D., Shiekh, S., Qureshi, Z.U., You, D. & Lawn, J.E. (2016). National, regional, and worldwide estimates of stillbirth rates in 2015, with trends from 2000: a systematic analysis. Lancet; 4(2):e98–108. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00275-2.
Boyle, S., Thomas, H. & Brooks, F. (2016). Women’s views on partnership working with midwives during pregnancy and childbirth. Midwifery 32:21-9. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2015.09.001.
Burau, V. & Overgaard, C. (2015). Caseload midwifery as organisational change: the interplay between professional and organisational projects in Denmark. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 15:121. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0546-8
Carter, A.G., Wilkes, E., Gamble, J., Sidebotham, M. & Creedy, D.K. (2015). Midwifery students׳ experiences of an innovative clinical placement model embedded within midwifery continuity of care in Australia. Midwifery 31, 765–771. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2015.04.006.
Dawson, K., Forster, D.A., McLachlan, H.L. & Newton, M.S. (2018). Operationalising caseload midwifery in the Australian public maternity system: findings from a national cross-sectional survey of maternity managers. Women Birth 31, 194–201. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2017.08.132.
Geller, S.E., Koch, A.R., Garland, C.E., MacDonald, E.J., Storey, F. & Lawton, B. (2018). A global view of severe maternal morbidity: moving beyond maternal mortality. Reprod. Health;15:98. doi:10.1186/s12978- 018- 0527-2
Graham, W., Woodd, S., Byass, P., Filippi, V., Gon, G., Virgo, S., Chou, D., Hounton, S. Lozano, R. Pattinson, R. & Singh, S. (2016). Diversity and divergence: the dynamic burden of poor maternal health. Lancet; 388:2164–75. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31533-1
Homer, C.S., Leap, N., Edwards, N., & Sandall, J. (2017). Midwifery continuity of care in an area of high socio- economic disadvantage in London: A retrospective analysis of Albany Midwifery Practice outcomes using routine data (1997–2009). Midwifery 48, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2017.02.009.
Jepsen, I., Mark, E., Nøhr, E.A., Foureur, M. & Sørensen, E.E. (2016). A qualitative study of how caseload midwifery is constituted and experienced by Danish midwives. Midwifery 36, 61–69. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.03.002.
Killingley, Jo (2016). Sustainable birth:case-loading. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, 26 (4). pp. 452-453.
McLachlan, H.L., Forster, D.A., Davey, M.A., Farrell, T., Flood, M., Shafiei, T. & Waldenström, U. (2015). ‘The effect of primary midwife-led care on women’s experience of child birth – the results of the COSMOS trial’, BJOG in press. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471- 0528.13713
Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M , Ciapponi, A., Colaci, D., Comandé, D., Diaz, V., Geller, S., Hanson, C., Langer, A., Manuelli, V., Millar, K., Morhason-Bello, I., Castro, C.P., Pileggi, V.N., Robinson, N., Skaer, M., Souza, J.P., Vogel, J.P. & Althabe, F. (2016). Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. Lancet 2016;388:2176–92.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736 (16)31472-6
Mortensen, B., Lukasse, M., Diep, L.M. Lieng, M., Abu-Awad, A. Suleiman, M., & Fosse, E. (2018). Can a midwife- led continuity model improve maternal services in a low-resource setting? A non-randomised cluster intervention study in Palestine. BMJ Open; 8:e019568.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019568
National Maternity Review (2016). Better Births. Improving outcomes of maternity services in England. A Five Year Forward View for maternity care.
Newton, M.S., Mclachlan, H.L., Forster, D.A. & Willis, K.F. (2016). Understanding the ‘work’ of caseload midwives: a mixed-methods exploration of two caseload midwifery models in Victoria, Australia. Women Birth 29, 223–233. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2015.10.011.
Okeke, E., Glick, P., Abubakar, I.S., Chari, A.V., Pitchforth, E., Exley, J., Bashir, U., Setodji, C., Gu, K. & Onwujekwe, O, (2017). The Better Obstetrics in Rural Nigeria study: an impact evaluation of the Nigerian Midwives Service Scheme, 3ie Impact Evaluation Report 56, New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
Oyetunde, M.O. (2014). Quality issues in midwifery: A critical analysis of midwifery in Nigeria within the context of the International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) global standards. International Journal of Nursing and Midwifery. Vol. 6(3), pp. 40-48, July 2014 DOI: 10.5897/IJNM2013-0119
Perdok, H., Verhoeven, C., van Dillen, J., Schuitmaker, T.J., Hoogendoorn, K., Colli, J., Schellevis, F.G., & de Jonge A. (2018). Continuity of care is an important and distinct aspect of childbirth experience: findings of a survey evaluating experienced continuity of care, experienced quality of care and women’s perception of labor. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 18, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1615-y
Rayment-Jones, H., Murrells, T. & Sandall, J. (2015). ‘An investigation of the relationship between the caseload model of midwifery for socially disadvantaged women and childbirth outcomes using routine data-a retrospective, Observational study’. Midwifery, 31(4): 409–417. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2015.01.003
Sandall, J., Coxon, K., Mackintosh, N., Rayment-Jones, H., Locock, L. & Page, L. (2016). (writing on behalf of the Sheila Kitzinger symposium) Relationships: the pathway to safe, high-quality maternity care. Report from the Sheila Kitzinger symposium at Green Templeton College October 2015. Green Templeton College, Oxford.
Sandall, J., Soltani, H., Gates, S., Shennan, A. & Devane, D. (2015). Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 9:CD004667. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.
Sidebotham, M., Fenwick, J., Rath, S. & Gamble, J. (2015). Midwives’ perceptions of their role within the context of maternity service reform: An Appreciative Inquiry. Women and Birth. Volume 28, Issue 2, June 2015, Pages 112-120. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2014.12.006.
Taylor, B., Cross-Sudworth, F. & MacArthur, C. (2018). Better Births and Continuity: Midwife Survey Results. Accessed 20th January 2020, Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE wi1soz_i6LnAhXFxYUKHazADKUQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.birmingham.ac.uk%2F Documents%2Fcollege-mds%2Fapplied-health%2Fbetter-birth-and- continuity.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3FGSMj0IzWmrVI7eHVUyId
Taylor, B., Cross-Sudworth, F., Goodwin, L., Kenyon, S., & MacArthur C. (2019). Midwives’ perspectives of continuity based working in the UK: A cross-sectional survey. Midwifery 75 127–137. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2019.05.005.
World Health Organisation (2014). Maternal mortality. Fact sheet No. 348; Geneva: (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs348/en/ index.html, accessed 22nd June 2019).
World Health Organisation (2016a). WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/250796/9789241549912eng.pdf;jsessionid=3D067F2817A274DEDF22520163E97D4E?sequence=1. Accesses 6th, May 2019
World Health Organization (2016b). WHO recommendation on midwife-led continuity of careduring pregnancy. Accessed 15th June 2019. Retrieved from: https://extranet.who.int/rhl/topics/improving-health-system-performance/implementation strategies/who-recommendation-midwife-ledcontinuity care-during- pregnancy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33024/minh.v3i2.2997
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Malahayati International Journal of Nursing and Health Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Weblink Journal move to Journal Website
https://ejurnal.malahayati.ac.id/index.php/minh/home
Weblink Jurnal berpindah ke Website Jurnal
https://ejurnal.malahayati.ac.id/index.php/minh/home