Medical Abortion in Midwifery Scope of Practice: A Qualitative Exploration of the Attitudes of Registered Midwives in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Across Canada and internationally, access to abortion remains challenging, particularly for those living in rural and remote communities. International research and policy call for the training of advanced practice clinicians, including midwives, to provide abortion services to fill the ever-increasing access gap. Research in other jurisdictions has examined the attitudes of midwives toward this potential expansion of scope of practice, but such studies have not been undertaken in British Columbia. This qualitative research study explored the attitudes of registered midwives toward expanding their scope of practice to include the provision of medication abortion in British Columbia. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews with British Columbia registered midwives were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen interviews were conducted. Analysis of the interviews identified 5 primary themes: the incorporation of medication abortion into the midwifery scope of practice to increase access, the congruence of the midwifery model of care and provision of medication abortion, the role of registered midwives as guardians of reproductive rights, the need for a paradigm shift in how the profession is viewed, and the practicalities of potential scope expansion. DISCUSSION: This study shows some British Columbia registered midwives are interested in including medication abortion in their scope of practice. Midwives have the potential to bridge some of the health care delivery gaps in areas underserved by abortion providers and communities where medication abortion is not available. Further research is needed to more fully understand the perspectives of registered midwives in British Columbia as a whole.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".