The Information Needs of Canadian Midwives and Their Evidence Informed Practices: A Canada-Wide Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective – The study aim was to understand the extent to which Canadian registered midwives have access to and make use of clinically relevant information for evidence based midwifery practice. Methods – A survey instrument was created consisting of 17 multiple choice, matrix table, and short answer questions and distributed to 1,690 recipients on the Canadian Association of Midwives email list in fall 2018. In total, 193 responses were included in the analysis. Results – One third of midwives do not have library memberships. Midwives reported that limited access to clinically relevant information is a key challenge in applying information in practice. Midwives with library memberships reported more frequent use of high-quality information while midwives without memberships reported more frequent use of websites. Midwives with advanced degrees (graduate, PhDs) were more likely to be high-frequency information users and rank themselves higher on evidence based competency scales than their undergraduate-holding colleagues. Clinical practice guidelines were important information sources and used frequently by midwives. Conclusion – Midwives reported low levels of academic or hospital library memberships and yet used information frequently. Clinical practice guidelines support the work of midwives but are inaccessible to some due to paywalls. Midwives lacked confidence in evidence based practice and reported critical appraisal as an area for development. Solutions to these problems could be addressed at the hospital, health authority, provincial, or national association level, or within midwifery departments at Canadian universities. Hospital and academic libraries should prioritize the information needs of students and practicing midwives and identify ways to foster use of library resources through administrative or educational interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.198 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".