Making Midwifery Services Accessible to People of Low SES: A Qualitative Descriptive Study of the Barriers Faced by Midwives in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Midwifery care is associated with health benefits for disadvantaged groups but continues to be accessed less frequently in Ontario by people who are of lower socio-economic status (SES). We conducted a qualitative descriptive study investigating the work midwives do to make midwifery care accessible to people of low SES and explored the barriers they encounter in doing this work. We interviewed 13 Ontario midwives who serve people of low SES in a wide range of clinical settings. Participants faced multiple challenges in their work to make midwifery care more accessible. They described barriers that they had encountered which pertained to the nature of the work itself, to professional and organizational factors, and to systemic factors. Midwives engaged in this work are deeply committed to it and take on extra unpaid work. The barriers they face threaten the sustainability of their work, and as a result, many participants identified a high risk of burnout. Our findings provide new insight into ways in which gaps in the curriculum of undergraduate midwifery education, lack of opportunities for mentorship, and debate within the midwifery profession about who is suitable for midwifery care serve as barriers to midwives taking on a greater role in providing care to people of low SES and particularly to those who struggle to access primary maternity care services. Systemic changes are needed to overcome these barriers and to expand the work of making midwifery care more accessible while ensuring its sustainability. This article has been peer reviewed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".