Client experiences of expertise in midwifery care in New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study contextualizes client experiences of midwifery in New Brunswick within the broader literature on midwifery in Canada and contributes to understandings of how midwifery care fits into the landscape of reproductive healthcare in the province. DESIGN: Semi structured interviews with 32 clients and supportive others of the New Brunswick midwifery program were carried out in 2019 and 2020, and transcripts were analysed using general thematic analysis. SETTING: N New Brunswick, Canada PARTICIPANTS: Clients of midwifery care provided by the Fredericton Midwifery Centre, as well as their supportive others (partners and spouses, family members, friends) FINDINGS: Participants in this study reported a high degree of satisfaction with midwifery services and identified several approaches to practice that they felt contributed to high quality midwifery care. These include competence and expertise, time and access as abundance rather than scarcity, attention to the familial context, trauma informed care and attention to mental and emotional health, postpartum care, and supporting agency and autonomy. In short, participants' responses indicate that midwifery care in New Brunswick meets the criteria for respectful maternity care, as outlined by Shakibazadeh et al. (Shakibazadeh et al., 2018) and Butler et al. (Butler et al., 2020). Our findings are in line with research on midwifery care in other settings, although there is a significant emphasis on the medical expertise and training of midwives amongst our participants which is less evident in the scholarly literature. KEY CONCLUSIONS: In a province where reproductive health care has been systematically underfunded, clients celebrate the expertise and competence of midwives, challenging the narrative which constructs midwifery as 'traditional' care, and hospital-based obstetrics as expert care. Instead, midwives are recognized as highly specialized evidence-based practitioners, and this is particularly prized by clients in relation to processes of information sharing.
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".