A scoping review of how new midwifery practitioners transition to practice in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom and The Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: contemporary knowledge related to the experiences of new midwifery practitioners is limited to countries that run hospital-based transition to practice programmes within an employment contract arrangement, such as the United Kingdom, and Australia. Less is known of the experiences of New Midwifery Practitioners (NMPs) who transition into autonomous private practice in New Zealand, Canada and the Netherlands. PURPOSE: the purpose of this paper is to report on a scoping review of the way NMPs are transitioned to practice in the first year of registered practice across the selected countries. METHODS: this review accessed literature and government and professional sites to make comparisons between the transition to practice processes within five countries, and discusses the benefits and issues, associated with public hospital employment programs versus community based government funded midwifery group practices. FINDINGS: comparison of the way in which NMPs are transitioned to practice in the first year of registered practice between the selected countries shows important differences based on occupational organisation. Funding of maternity services influences how NMPs in each country are orientated and supported in their transition to registered practice. Direct comparisons between countries were difficult. More research is recommended to investigate NMPs' experiences of transition to practice in private 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 | 0.014 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".