Midwifery-led care in South Australia: Looking back to move forward |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia;2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, University Drive, Meadowbrook, QU 4131, Australia;3. Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre, Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia;1. Blood-Borne Virus Sector Development Program, Australian Research Centre in Sex Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;2. Mercy Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia;3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;4. Judith Lumley Centre, School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;1. Women’s & Newborn Program, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia;2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia;3. Center for Inflammatory Diseases, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia;4. Monash Infectious Diseases, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia;1. Centenary Hospital for Women and Children, and University of Canberra, Faculty of Health, 11 Kirinari St, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia;2. ACT Government Health Directorate and University of Canberra, Faculty of Health, 11 Kirinari St, Bruce, ACT 2617, Australia;1. Department of Nursing, School of Medicine, Yokohama City University, Japan;2. Department of Midwifery, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Japan;3. Japanese Midwives Association, Japan;1. National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia;2. The University of Queensland Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;3. Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Tiwi, Northern Territory, Australia;4. National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network, Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia;5. Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;6. Women’s and Children’s Health Network, Robinson Research Institute and School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia;7. University of Western Australia, School of Paediatrics and Child Health and Vaccine Trials Group, Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, Western Australia, Australia;8. Institute of Health & Biomedical Innovation, Centre for Children’s Health Research, Queensland University of Technology, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;1. Centre for Big Data Research in Health and School of Women’s and Children’s Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia;2. Australian Institute of Health Service Management, University of Tasmania, Launceston 7250, Australia;3. Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney 2007, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | BackgroundFrom the 1980s to the turn of the century, Australia saw an evolution of midwifery-led models of care, in part due to legislative reform and federal funding, but largely owing to the efforts of strong midwifery leaders and consumers who rallied for the implementation of alternative models of care. Through persistence and extensive collaboration, the first South Australian birth centres were established.AimTo better understand the evolution of midwifery-led care in South Australia and identify the drivers and impediments to inform the upscaling of midwifery models into the future.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with ten midwifery leaders and/or those instrumental in setting up birth centres and midwifery-led care in South Australia. Data was analysed using thematic analysis.FindingsThree overarching themes and several sub-themes were identified, these included: ‘Midwifery suffragettes’ which explored ‘activism’, ‘adversity’ and ‘advocacy’; ‘Building bridges’ captured the importance of ‘gathering midwives’, a ‘movement of women’ and ‘champions and influencers’; and ‘Recognising midwifery’ identified the strong ‘sense of identity’ needed to outface ‘ignorance and opposition’ and the importance of ‘role reformation’.ConclusionThese midwifery leaders provide insight into an era of change in the history of midwifery in South Australia and contribute valuable learnings. In order to move forward, midwives must continue to embrace the political nature of midwifery, enact authentic, transformational leadership and engage women across all levels of influence. It is critical that midwives pursue equity in professional recognition, work collaboratively to provide quality, woman-centred maternity care and expand midwifery continuity of care models. |
| |
| Keywords: | Midwifery-led care Midwifery leaders Birth centres Midwifery history Midwives Australia |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
