Psychological stressors affecting midwifery students in clinical education: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Midwives play a significant role in reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. As such, providing high-quality, low-stress clinical training is crucial to the professional development of midwifery students. Identification and resolution of psychological stressors are crucial to improve training programs and, in turn, maternal and neonatal health outcomes. The current study examines the psychological stressors experienced by midwifery students during their clinical training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review included 11 cross-sectional studies selected using the PRISMA checklist. Relevant literature was retrieved from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, covering publications from 1990 to 2024. Keywords such as"midwifery," "education," "psychological stress," and "student," along with their MeSH equivalents, were used. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The main categories of stress-related factors in midwifery clinical education identified in this review were: (1) Interpersonal Challenges and Inadequate Student Support; (2) Environmental and individual stressors; (3) Structural and educational challenges; and (4) The mediating role of personal and personality traits in clinical stress. CONCLUSION: Psychological stress experienced by midwifery students in clinical settings is a significant challenge. This stress arises from humiliating interactions, lack of support, gaps in education and structure, as well as environmental and individual stressors. Identifying these stressors is crucial for developing targeted interventions that can enhance students' clinical learning and ultimately improve midwifery education.
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".