REVIEW PAPER
Models for midwifery care: A mapping review
Tine S. Eri 1  
,  
Marie Berg 2, 3
,  
Bente Dahl 4
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
2
Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Health and Care Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
3
The Obstretic Unit, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
4
Centre for Women’s, Family and Child Health, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Kongsberg, Norway
5
Department of Midwifery, Faculty of Nursing, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland
6
Women´s Clinic, Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavík, Iceland
7
Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C, Denmark
8
Department of Research, University College South Denmark, Haderslev, Denmark
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Tine S. Eri   

Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Pilestredet 32, Oslo, Norway
Publication date: 2020-07-30
Submission date: 2020-04-22
Final revision date: 2020-06-04
Acceptance date: 2020-06-16
 
Eur J Midwifery 2020;4(July):30
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
According to WHO, midwives are found competent to provide evidencebased and normalcy-facilitating maternity care. Models for midwifery care exist, but seem to be lacking explicit epistemological status, mainly focusing on the practical and organizational level of care delivery. To make the values and attitudes of care visible, it is important to implement care models with explicit epistemological status. The aim of this paper is to identify and gain an overview of publications of theoretical models for midwifery care.

Methods:
A mapping review was conducted with systematic searches in nine databases for studies describing a theoretical model or theory for midwifery care that either did or was intended to impact clinical practice. Eligibility criteria were refined during the selection process.

Results:
Six models from six papers originating from different parts of the world were included in the study. The included models were developed using different methodologies and had different philosophical underpinnings and complexity gradients. Some characteristics were common, the most distinctive being the emphasis of the midwife–woman relationship, secondly the focus on woman-centeredness, and thirdly the salutogenic focus in care.

Conclusions:
Overall, scarcity exists regarding theoretical models for midwifery care with explicit epistemological status. Further research is needed in order to develop generic theoretical models with an epistemological status to serve as a knowledge base for midwifery healthcare.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
FUNDING
There was no source of funding for this research.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
 
REFERENCES (48)
1.
MacKenzie Bryers H, van Teijlingen E. Risk, theory, social and medical models: A critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care. Midwifery. 2010;26(5):488-496. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2010.07.003
 
2.
Bryar RM, Sinclair M, eds. Theory for midwifery practice. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
 
3.
Church S, Balaam MC, Berg M, et al. New thinking on improving maternity care : international perspectives. London, UK: Pinter & Martin; 2017.
 
4.
Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research : generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2017.
 
5.
Walsh D. Promoting normal birth: weighing the evidence. In: Downe S, ed. Normal childbirth - evidence and debate. Edinburgh, UK; New York Churchill Livingstone; 2008.
 
6.
Davis-Floyd R. The technocratic, humanistic, and holistic paradigms of childbirth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;75(Suppl)1:S5-S23. doi:10.1016/s0020-7292(01)00510-0
 
7.
Lindstrom B, Berg M, Meier Magistretti C, Perez-Botella M, Downe S. The salutogenic approach to maternity care: from theory to practice and research. In: Church S, Frith L, Balaam MC, et al., eds. New perspectives on improving maternity care: International perspectives. London, UK: Pinter & Martin; 2017.
 
8.
Comaroff J. Conflicting paradigms of pregnancy: Managing ambiguity in antenatal encounters. In: Davis A, Horobin B, eds. Medical encounters: The experience of illness and treatment. London, UK: Croom Helm; 1977.
 
9.
Kennedy HP, Cheyney M, Dahlen HG, et al. Asking different questions: A call to action for research to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child. Birth. 2018;45(3):222-231. doi:10.1111/birt.12361
 
10.
Sturmberg JP, Martin CM. Complexity and health – yesterday's traditions, tomorrow's future. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(3):543-548. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01163.x
 
11.
Sturmberg JP. Embracing complexity in health and health care—Translating a way of thinking into a way of acting. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(3):598-599. doi:10.1111/jep.12935
 
12.
Nieuwenhuijze M, Downe S, Gottfreðsdóttir H, Rijnders M, Du Preez A, Vaz Rebelo P. Taxonomy for complexity theory in the context of maternity care. Midwifery. 2015;31(9):834-843. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2015.05.009
 
13.
Gottfredsdottir H, Nieuwenhuijze M, Frith L. Fetal screening in three countries for a complexity theory perspective. In: Church S, Frith L, Balaam MC, et al., eds. New Thinking on Maternity Care: International Perspectives. London, UK: Pinter & Martin; 2017.
 
14.
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experiences. https://www.who.int/publicatio.... Published July 9, 2018. Accessed June 4, 2020.
 
15.
Ten Hoope-Bender P, de Bernis L, Campbell J, et al. Improvement of maternal and newborn health through midwifery. The Lancet. 2014;384(9949):1226-1235. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60930-2
 
16.
Nove A, Hoope-Bender PT, Moyo NT, Bokosi M. The Midwifery services framework: What is it, and why is it needed? Midwifery. 2018;57:54-58. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2017.11.003
 
17.
Symon A, Pringle J, Cheyne H, et al. Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2016;16(1):168. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-0944-6
 
18.
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). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5
 
19.
Shahhosseini Z, Gardeshi ZH, Valukolaee MH, Khermandichali FY. 166: CONTINUOUS MIDWIFERY LED CARE COMPARED TO OTHER MODELS: AN EVIDENCE-BASED JOURNAL CLUB. BMJ Open. 2017;7(Suppl 1). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015415.166
 
20.
Cragin L. The Theoretical Basis for Nurse‐Midwifery Practice in the United States: A Critical Analysis of Three Theories. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2004;49(5):381-389. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1542-2011.2004.tb04431.x
 
21.
Lundgren I, Berg M. Central concepts in the midwife-woman relationship. Scand J Caring Sci. 2007;21(2):220-228. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00460.x
 
22.
International Confederation of Midwives. Philosophy and Model of Midwifery Care. https://www.internationalmidwi.... Published 2014. Accessed June 4, 2020.
 
23.
Walker LO, Avant KC. Strategies for theory construction in nursing. New York, NY: Pearson; 2019.
 
24.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91-108. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
 
25.
Gough DA, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2017.
 
26.
Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2016.
 
27.
Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. The Lancet. 2014;384(9948):1129-1145. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60789-3
 
28.
Kannampallil TG, Schauer GF, Cohen T, Patel VL. Considering complexity in healthcare systems. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2011;44(6):943-947. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2011.06.006
 
29.
Noblit G, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 1988.
 
30.
Fleming V. Women-with-midwives: a model of interdependence. Midwifery. 1997;14(3):137-143. doi:10.1016/s0266-6138(98)90028-6
 
31.
Kennedy HP. A model of exemplary midwifery practice: results of a delphi study. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2000;45(1):4-19. doi:10.1016/s1526-9523(99)00018-5
 
32.
Berg M. A midwifery model of care for childbearing women at high risk: genuine caring in caring for the genuine. J Perinat Educ. 2005;14(1):9-21. doi:10.1624/105812405X23577
 
33.
Maputle MS. A woman-centred childbirth model. Health SA Gesondheid. 2010;15(1):28-35. doi:10.4102/hsag.v15i1.450
 
34.
Halldorsdottir S, Karlsdottir SI. The primacy of the good midwife in midwifery services: an evolving theory of professionalism in midwifery. Scand J Caring Sci. 2011;25(4):806-817. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00886.x
 
35.
Berg M, Asta Ólafsdóttir Ó, Lundgren I. A midwifery model of woman-centred childbirth care – In Swedish and Icelandic settings. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2012;3(2):79-87. doi:10.1016/j.srhc.2012.03.001
 
36.
De Vries R, Nieuwenhuijze M, Buitendijk SE, members of Midwifery Science Work G. What does it take to have a strong and independent profession of midwifery? Lessons from the Netherlands. Midwifery. 2013;29(10):1122-1128. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2013.07.007
 
37.
van Teijlingen E, Wrede S, Benoit C, Sandall J, DeVries R. Born in the USA: Exceptionalism in maternity care organisation among high-income countries. Sociological Research Online. 2008;14(1):52. doi:10.5153/sro.1860
 
38.
Benoit C, Sirpa W, Ivy B, Jane S, De VR, van TER. Understanding the social organisation of maternity care systems: midwifery as a touchstone. Sociol Health Illn. 2005;27(6):722-737. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00471.x
 
39.
Maputle MS, Hiss D. Woman-centred care in childbirth : a concept analysis (Part 1): original research. Curationis. 2013;36(1):1-8. doi:10.4102/curationis.v36i1.49
 
40.
Leap N. Woman-centred or women-centred care: does it matter? British Journal of Midwifery. 2009;17(1):12-16. doi:10.12968/bjom.2009.17.1.37646
 
41.
Fontein-Kuipers Y, de Groot R, van Staa A. Woman-centered care 2.0: Bringing the concept into focus. Eur J Midwifery. 2018;2(May). doi:10.18332/ejm/91492
 
42.
Peters M, Kolip P, Schäfers R. A theory of the aims and objectives of midwifery practice: A theory synthesis. Midwifery. 2020;84:102653. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2020.102653
 
43.
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
 
44.
Vermeulen J, Luyben A, O’Connell R, Gillen P, Escuriet R, Fleming V. Failure or progress?: The current state of the professionalisation of midwifery in Europe. Eur J Midwifery. 2019;3(December). doi:10.18332/ejm/115038
 
45.
Bryar R, Sinclair M. Midwifery Theory Development. In: Bryar R, Sinclair M, eds. Theory for Midwifery Practice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
 
46.
Conrad P. The medicalization of society : on the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007: https://ebookcentral-proquest-.... Accessed June 4, 2020.
 
47.
Ceschia A, Horton R. Maternal health: time for a radical reappraisal. The Lancet. 2016;388(10056):2064-2066. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31534-3
 
48.
Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M, et al. Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. The Lancet. 2016;388(10056):2176-2192. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31472-6
 
eISSN:2585-2906