Validating midwifery professionals' scope of practice and competency: A multi-country study comparing national data to international standards.

BACKGROUND: There is a global shortage of midwives, whose services are essential to meet the healthcare needs of pregnant women and newborns. Evidence suggests that if enough midwives, trained and regulated to global standards, were deployed worldwide, maternal, and perinatal mortality would decline significantly. Health workforce planning estimates the number of midwives needed to achieve population coverage of midwifery interventions. However, to provide a valid measure of midwifery care coverage, an indicator must consider not only the raw number of midwives, but also their scope and competency. The tasks midwives are authorized to deliver and their competency to perform essential skills and behaviors provide crucial information for understanding the availability of safe, high-quality midwifery services. Without reliable estimates for an adequate midwifery workforce, progress toward ending preventable maternal and perinatal mortality will continue to be uneven. The International Labor Organization (ILO) and the International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) suggest standards for midwifery scope of practice and competencies. This paper compares national midwifery regulations, scope, and competencies in three countries to the ILO and ICM standards to validate measures of midwife density. We also assess midwives' self-reported skills/behaviors from the ICM competencies and their acquisition. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We compared midwives' scope of practice in Argentina, Ghana, and India to the ILO Tasks and ICM Essential Competencies for Midwifery Practice. We compared midwives self-reported skills/behaviors with the ICM Competencies. Univariate and bivariate analysis was conducted to describe the association between midwives' skills and selected characteristics. National scopes of practice matched two ILO tasks in Argentina, four in India, and all in Ghana. National standards partially reflected ICM skills in Categories 2, 3, and 4 (pre-pregnancy and antenatal care; care during labor and birth; and ongoing care of women and newborns, respectively) in Argentina (range 11% to 67%), mostly in India (range 74% to 100%) and completely in Ghana (100% match). 1,266 midwives surveyed reported considerable variation in competency for skills and behaviors across ICM Category 2, 3, and 4. Most midwives reported matching skills and behaviors around labor and childbirth (Category 2). Higher proportions of midwives reported gaining basic skills through in-service training and on-job-experience than in pre-service training. CONCLUSION: Estimating the density of midwives needed for an adequate midwifery workforce capable of providing effective population coverage is predicated on a valid numerator. A reliable and valid count of midwives to meet population needs assumes that each midwife counted has the authority to exercise the same behaviors and reflects the ability to perform them with comparable competency. Our results demonstrate variation in midwifery scopes of practice and self-reported competencies in comparison to global standards that pose a threat to the reliability and validity of the numerator in measures of midwife density, and suggest the potential for expanded authorization and improved education and training to meet global reference standards for midwifery practice has not been fully realized. Although the universally recognized standard, this study demonstrates that the complex, composite descriptions of skills and behaviors in the ICM competencies make them difficult to use as benchmark measures with any precision, as they are not defined or structured to serve as valid measures for assessing workforce competency. A simplified, content-validated measurement system is needed to facilitate evaluation of the competency of the midwifery workforce.

Group antenatal care models in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic evidence synthesis.

In high-income countries, group antenatal care (ANC) offers an alternative to individual care and is associated with improved attendance, client satisfaction, and health outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. In low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, this model could be adapted to address low antenatal care uptake and improve quality. However, evidence on key attributes of a group care model for low-resource settings remains scant. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on models of group antenatal care in LMICs to identify attributes that may increase the relevance, acceptability and effectiveness of group ANC in such settings. We systematically searched five databases and conducted hand and reference searches. We also conducted key informant interviews with researchers and program implementers who have introduced group antenatal care models in LMICs. Using a pre-defined evidence summary template, we extracted evidence on key attributes-like session content and frequency, and group composition and organization-of group care models introduced across LMIC settings. Our systematic literature review identified nine unique descriptions of group antenatal care models. We supplemented this information with evidence from 10 key informant interviews. We synthesized evidence from these 19 data sources to identify attributes of group care models for pregnant women that appeared consistently across all of them. We considered these components that are fundamental to the delivery of group antenatal care. We also identified attributes that need to be tailored to the context in which they are implemented to meet local standards for comprehensive ANC, for example, the number of sessions and the session content. We compiled these attributes to codify a composite "generic" model of group antenatal care for adaptation and implementation in LMIC settings. With this combination of standard and flexible components, group antenatal care, a service delivery alternative that has been successfully introduced and implemented in high-income country settings, can be adapted for improving provision and experiences of care for pregnant women in LMIC. Any conclusions about the benefits of this model for women, babies, and health systems in LMICs, however, must be based on robust evaluations of group antenatal care programs in those settings.