RESEARCH PAPER
A public e-survey to explore community understanding of the role of the midwife in Australia
Lois McKellar 1  
,  
Angela Brown 1
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of South Australia, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Adelaide, Australia
2
Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Lois McKellar   

School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, Centenary Building, City East Campus, Frome Road, Adelaide, 5000, Australia
Publish date: 2019-11-29
Submission date: 2019-09-04
Final revision date: 2019-11-04
Acceptance date: 2019-11-14
 
Eur J Midwifery 2019;3(November):20
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
There is compelling evidence that when a woman sees the same midwife there are better outcomes. Yet in Australia, access to midwifery continuity of care remains limited. There are a number of reasons for this but one barrier appears to be a lack of public understanding regarding the role of the midwife. This study undertook an e-survey to explore Australian public perceptions of the role of the midwife.

Methods:
A public opinion sample e-survey, using an exploratory design, a Likert scale and open-ended questions, was distributed through social media over six weeks. The survey was open to Australian residents and was completed by 1657 participants. Of these, 96.9% identified as female and 82.1% of participants had children.

Results:
Nearly half of the participants believed that a woman must see a doctor during pregnancy and after birth, compared to 21.9% during birth. Many participants described midwives as caring and supportive but there was a lack of understanding about their level of skill and expertise. A dominant theme was the alignment of medical care with safety and the perception that medical practitioners reduce risk. These misperceptions may impact on women making an informed choice regarding midwifery model of care in Australia.

Conclusions:
There is an underlying public narrative whereby the public primarily associate midwives with birth and perceive them as assistants rather than lead care providers. The study findings informed a public awareness campaign in South Australia conducted to educate the public’s understanding of the role of the midwife.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project team acknowledges the contribution of the midwives, midwifery students, medical colleagues, the women and their families to the campaign. We thank those who took the time to complete the public survey.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
FUNDING
The public awareness campaign was supported by a grant from the South Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
 
REFERENCES (25)
1.
Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:CD004667. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5
 
2.
Homer C. Models of maternity care: evidence for midwifery continuity of care. Med J Aust. 2016;205(8):370-374. doi:10.5694/mja16.00844
 
3.
McLachlan H, Forster D, Davey M, et al. Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2012;119(12):1483-1492. doi:10.1111/j.1471‐0528.2012.03446.x
 
4.
Tracy S, Hartz D, Tracy M, et al. Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9906):1723-1732. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61406-3
 
5.
Australian Government Department of Health. Improving maternity services in Australia: the Report of the Maternity Services Review. Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. https://www1.health.gov.au/int.... Accessed September 4, 2019.
 
6.
Australian Government Department of Health. National Maternity Services Plan. Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2011. http://www.health.gov.au/inter.... Accessed September 4, 2019.
 
7.
Australian Government Department of Health. Midwives and nurse practitioners. http://www.health.gov.au/inter.... Accessed September 4, 2019.
 
8.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s mothers and babies: 2016 in brief. In: Perinatal statistics series no. 34. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2018. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmed.... Accessed September 4, 2019.
 
9.
Li Z, McNally L, Hilder L, Sullivan EA. Australia’s mothers and babies 2009. In: Perinatal statistics series no. 25. Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit; 2009. https://embryology.med.unsw.ed.... Accessed September 4, 2019.
 
10.
Dawson K, McLachlan H, Newton M, Forster D. Implementing caseload midwifery: Exploring the views of maternity managers in Australia - A national cross-sectional survey. Women Birth. 2016;29(3):214-222. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2015.10.010
 
11.
Rigg E, Schmied V, Peters K, Dahlan H. Not addressing the root cause: An analysis of submissions made to the South Australian Government on a Proposal to Protect Midwifery. Women Birth. 2015;28(2):121-128. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2014.12.005
 
12.
Brooker R, Schaefer T. Public Opinion in the 21st Century. USA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2006.
 
13.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
 
14.
Dahlen H. ‘Undone by Fear? Deluded by Trust?’. Midwifery. 2010;26(2):156-162. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2009.11.008
 
15.
Barclay L, Kornelsen J, Longman J, et al. Reconceptualising risk: Perceptions of risk in rural and remote maternity service planning. Midwifery. 2016;38:63-70. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2016.04.007
 
16.
Coxon K, Chisholm A, Malouf R, Rowe R, Hollowell J. What influences birth place preferences, choices and decision-making amongst healthy women with straightforward pregnancies in the UK? A qualitative evidence synthesis using a ‘best fit’ framework approach. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):103. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1279-7
 
17.
Hadjigeorgiou E, Kouta C, Papastavrou E, Papadopoulos I, Mårtensson LB. Women’s perceptions of their right to choose the place of childbirth: an integrative review. Midwifery. 2012;28(3):380-390. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2011.05.006
 
18.
Luce A, Cash M, Hundley V, Cheyne H, Van Teijlingen E, Angell C. “Is it realistic?” the portrayal of pregnancy and childbirth in the media. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):40. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-0827-x
 
19.
McIntyre MJ, Francis K, Chapman Y. Shaping public opinion on the issue of childbirth; a critical analysis of articles published in an Australian newspaper. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11(1):47. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-11-47
 
20.
Fahy K, Parratt J. Birth territory: a theory for midwifery practice. Women Birth 2006;19(2):45-50. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2006.05.001
 
21.
Newnham E. Birth control: Power/knowledge in the politics of birth. Health Sociology Review. 2014;23(3):254-268. doi:10.1080/14461242.2014.11081978
 
22.
Newnham E, McKellar L, Pincombe J. Towards the Humanisation of Birth: A study of epidural analgesia and hospital birth culture. London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69962-2
 
23.
Carolan M, Hodnett E. ‘With woman’ philosophy: examining the evidence, answering the questions. Nursing Inquiry. 2007;14(2):140-152. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1800.2007.00360.x
 
24.
Budin W. The truth about midwives. Journal of Perinatal Education. 2013;22(2):63-65. doi:10.1891/1058-1243.22.2.63
 
25.
Couper M. Web surveys a review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2000;64(4):464-494. doi:10.1086/318641
 
eISSN:2585-2906