The midwifery capabilities theory: How midwives enact woman‐centered care to address systemic inequity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare for childbearing women with complex needs demands a multi-disciplinary approach requiring transitions between care providers, paradigms, and models of care. These transitions may create disconnects between women and the maternity care "system." Poorly managed care transitions can lead to women becoming hostage to the power struggles between healthcare organizations and the professionals working within them, further increasing the risk of poor outcomes. This paper presents the findings of a study that aimed to better understand how midwives provide woman-centered care for women with complex needs in the real world of maternity services. METHODS: A constructivist grounded theory approach, using Clarke's situational analysis to extend critical and feminist perspectives in data analysis. Qualitative data were obtained from two sources: publicly available data, and individual interviews with providers of care (midwives) and recipients of care (women with complex pregnancies). RESULTS: Woman-centered care is defined as care in which the woman is seen, heard, and known. "The midwifery capabilities theory" describes the process whereby midwives create opportunities to develop women's capabilities. Capabilities are enabled through the midwifery relationship creating space, moments in time, and equalizing power and positionality. CONCLUSIONS: Aligning with contemporary theories surrounding the provision of midwifery care, the midwifery capabilities theory recognizes the individual health and social status of women and the rights to self-determination. This centers care around each individual's needs, which, in addition to improving health and well-being outcomes, contributes to improved self-confidence, enhancing engagement through authentic professional relationships.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".