Models of midwifery care for Indigenous women and babies: A meta-synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUE: Indigenous women in many countries experience a lack of access to culturally appropriate midwifery services. A number of models of care have been established to provide services to women. Research has examined some services, but there has not been a synthesis of qualitative studies of the models of care to help guide practice development and innovations. AIM: To undertake a review of qualitative studies of midwifery models of care for Indigenous women and babies evaluating the different types of services available and the experiences of women and midwives. METHODS: A meta-synthesis was undertaken to examine all relevant qualitative studies. The literature search was limited to English-language published literature from 2000-2014. Nine qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria and literature appraisal - six from Australia and three from Canada. These articles were analysed for coding and theme development. FINDINGS: The major themes were valuing continuity of care, managing structural issues, having negative experiences with mainstream services and recognising success. DISCUSSION: The most positive experiences for women were found with the services that provided continuity of care, had strong community links and were controlled by Indigenous communities. Overall, the experience of the midwifery services for Indigenous women was valuable. Despite this, there were still barriers preventing the provision of intrapartum midwifery care in remote areas. CONCLUSION: The expansion of midwifery models of care for Indigenous women and babies could be beneficial in order to improve cultural safety, experiences and outcomes in relation to pregnancy and birth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".