Which factors are associated with attitudes of midwives toward full scope of practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Approximately 50% of registered midwives practice full scope of practice in Ontario, Canada, as they are regulated to do so by the College of Midwives of Ontario (CMO). Full scope of practice is defined as the practice of midwifery as outlined by the CMO and includes management of childbirth complicated by oxytocin induction and/or augmentation and epidural analgesia. Scope of practice restrictions have been attributed to midwifery attitudes toward full scope of practice. This study aims to identify factors that predict favourable attitudes of Ontario midwives toward full scope of practice. Methods: The survey included four sections with yes/no, multiple choice and Likert scale response options measuring concepts including attitudes toward full scope of practice. Statistical evaluation was descriptive and explorative. Possible factors associated with favourable attitudes of Ontario midwives toward full scope of practice were assessed using multiple logistic regression models. Results: Of the 174 respondents, 170 were considered for analysis. Results show that midwives who work full time in midwifery practice groups (OR: 3.73, 95% CI 1.49 – 9.29, p = 0.005) as well as midwives who work full scope of practice (OR: 3.62, 95% CI 1.25 – 10.44, p = 0.02) are more likely to have favourable attitudes toward full scope of practice compared to those who worked part time or without full scope of practice. Age, work experience, number of midwives, rural status and previous full scope of practice provided inconclusive results. Conclusion: Supporting midwives to work to their full scope of practice may influence the attitudes of midwives toward full scope of practice which could affect the regulation of scope of practice across the province for Ontario midwives. Current models of midwifery service provision should be assessed for the potential impact on the attitudes of midwives toward full scope of practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".