Investigating the potential for evidence-based midwifery-led services in very remote Australia: Viewpoints from local stakeholders

Development and validation of the Australian version of the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R)

“…It is of value to speculate on any potential differences between birthing context that may impact on these individual item scores, despite the differences being small. Potential factors could be nuanced differences in the embedded woman-centred philosophy of care between Australia (Quinn et al, 2013;Tracy et al, 2013;Tracy et al, 2014) and the UK (Renfrew et al, 2014;Sandall, Soltani, Gates, Shennan, & Devane, 2016), differences between the ratio of primagravida to multigravida women between studies, and differences between the proportions in relation to delivery type. Given that BSS-R items 1. and 3. have been shown to be scalar non-invariant in a previous study and the current study in comparison to the original measure, a future qualitative study could be of value to determine any perceptible or meaningful difference in interpretation of item meaning and how this may relate to the possible factors highlighted above.…”

“…Australia represents a developed country with a highly advanced health economy that incorporates features of both UK and US service delivery models (Jackson, Dimitropoulos, Madden, & Gillett, 2015;Ragupathy, Aaltonen, Tordoff, Norris, & Reith, 2012). A pertinent feature of Australian maternity care services are that they remain highly medicalised (Benoit, Zadoroznyj, Hallgrimsdottir, Treloar, & Taylor, 2010;Weaver, Clark, & Vernon, 2005) despite the strong movement led by government reforms towards midwifery-led models (Quinn, Noble, Seale, & Ward, 2013;Tracy et al, 2013;Tracy et al, 2014). However, the movement toward woman-centred care and choice has gathered some pace in Australia (Catling & Homer, 2016) and similar to both the UK and the US (Fleming et al, 2016; C. J.…”

Models of Postnatal Care for Low-Income Countries: A Review of the Literature Abstract

“…The study by Fenwick et al (2010) showed that the midwife-led care model provided at home had better or similar patient physical and emotional outcomes, and provided better continuity of care, and more patient-centred care. Three others studies (Gao et al 2014;Quinn et al 2013;Tracy et al 2013) showed that midwife-led care delivered safe and cost-effective care and was suitable for all women; including populations living in rural areas, women who are socially disadvantaged and women with a medical risk. Quinn et al's study (2013) showed that local health services were ready to implement midwife-led models in very remote communities; however, Homer et al's study (2009) showed that overall the role of the midwife in postnatal care still needed better promotion and greater understanding.…”

“…Two studies from high income countries (McLachlan et al, 2008;Quinn et al, 2013) revealed that a high proportion of women used the medical model for their primary maternity care, especially in rural areas where the choice of model of maternity care offered to women was limited. There were no studies addressing this area from low or middle income settings.…”

Local awareness based midwifery care in basic level service in the digital era

“…in urban areas. Technology as a tool in helping pregnant women to check pregnancy and childbirth in the current information era (Elmore et al, 2020;Heslehurst et al, 2013;Quinn et al, 2013) is much different from that of village midwives assigned by the government. Rural people still expect assistance from village midwives.…”