The Safety and Feasibility of Contraception Care by Midwives and Other Nonphysician Providers: A Scoping Review of Randomized Control Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although midwives in most Canadian provinces and other high-income countries have contraceptive prescribing ability, it is not within the Ontario midwifery scope of practice.Aim: To outline the contraceptive-related scope of practice of midwives in Canada and other high-income countries and to review the outcomes of contraceptive provision by physician versus nonphysician providers.Methods: We conducted an environmental scan through a search of grey literature to summarize contraception-related scopes of practice of midwives in provinces across Canada and in other high-income countries. We then conducted a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the outcomes of physicians compared with nonphysician providers for the provision of contraception care, and summarized that evidence.Findings: Our environmental scan revealed that Quebec and Ontario are the only provinces in Canada in which midwives cannot prescribe contraception. In the following industrialized countries, midwives with education similar to that of Ontario midwives are able to prescribe contraception: New Zealand, Australia, United States, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, and France. Our review of RCTs indicates that for most measures of competency, the outcomes of physician and nonphysical providers are similar when providing contraception care. 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 | 0.041 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".