Toward Equity in Access to Midwifery in Saskatchewan: Key Informants’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we report on the second phase of our exploratory research into issues related to equity in access to midwifery in Saskatchewan. This phase of the research project aimed to explore equity in access to midwifery as understood and experienced by key stakeholders involved in the early stages of midwifery implementation in Saskatchewan. A total of 19 interviews were conducted with participants from Saskatchewan Health, the Midwifery Transitional Council, and Saskatoon’s Regional Midwifery Operations Committee, as well as practitioners, primary health care managers, directors from select regional health authorities, and Saskatchewan midwives. Additionally, all available midwifery policy documents and relevant Primary Health Care and Health Human Resource documents complemented the qualitative analysis. Initial thematic analysis led to five policy recommendations: (1) develop a provincial definition of “priority population” for midwifery clients, (2) establish a midwifery health human resource plan, (3) identify provincial midwifery research priorities, (4) facilitate growth in interprofessional relationships, and (5) develop a provincial “road map” for implementation. A secondary analysis of participants’ responses revealed concern over the poor public education about midwifery services and lack of provincial government prioritization, as well as varied perceptions of the concept of “equity.” We conclude that although general commitments to equity in midwifery service and access are enshrined in Saskatchewan’s health care policies and midwifery regulations, insider perspectives suggest that significant yet modifiable barriers to equity in access to care currently exist. 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 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".