journal article Open Access Apr 03, 2024

A concurrent mixed‐method study exploring the experiences of interprofessional collaboration among Canadian midwives and obstetricians

Journal of Advanced Nursing Vol. 80 No. 10 pp. 4323-4332 · Wiley
View at Publisher Save 10.1111/jan.16183
Abstract
Abstract

Aim
This study explores the experiences of interprofessional collaboration of Canadian midwives and obstetricians from midwives' perspective.


Design
A concurrent mixed‐methods approach that combined a small validation study and qualitative thematic analysis was used to provide evidence of the nature and importance of collaboration between Registered Midwives (RMs) and obstetricians.


Method
Eighteen RMs across Canada completed a demographic survey and the Midwifery‐Obstetrician Collaboration (MOC) scale in 2023. The quantitative analyses were conducted to assess the reliability of the Midwifery‐Obstetrician Collaboration (MOC) and accumulate preliminary evidence to support its validity. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 13 participants. After completing the interviews, themes were identified using thematic analysis.


Results
The primary themes identified were knowledge of midwifery scope affects collaboration, collaboration is necessary for effective patient care, midwife‐physician collaboration is impacted by power differentials and hierarchies, and proposed methods to improve physician‐midwife collaboration. Although a small sample size did not permit extensive statistical testing, the quantitative results supported the reliability of the MOC scale. In addition, a strong correlation between the MOC and the communication subscale of the Inter‐Professional Collaboration (IPC) scale provided evidence of the MOC's concurrent validity as a measure of collaboration between midwives and physicians.


Conclusion
This study provides support for the Midwifery‐Obstetrics Collaboration (MOC) Scale as an assessment tool to evaluate collaboration between midwives and OB/GYNs in obstetrics care. While the 18 RMs recruited for this study provided a fulsome analysis for the qualitative portion, a larger study is necessary to provide more extensive quantitative analysis to validate the MOC scale for continued use among RMs and OBs.


Implications
The implications of this study are to foster strong interprofessional relationships between midwives and OBs and to improve the health outcomes of pregnant women and newborns.


Reporting Method
The authors adhered to Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ).
Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References
38
[2]
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2016).Collaboration in practice: implementing team‐based care.https://www.acog.org/‐/media/project/acog/acogorg/clinical/files/task‐force‐report/articles/2016/collaboration‐in‐practice‐implementing‐team‐based‐care.pdf
[4]
Bell R. (2022)
[6]
Canadian Association of Midwives. (2023).About midwifery.https://canadianmidwives.org/about‐midwifery/
[9]
Connelly L. M. "Pilot studies" Medsurg Nursing (2008)
[10]
Cresswell J. W. "Advanced mixed" Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (2003)
[18]
International Confederation of Midwives. (2014).Philosophy and model of midwifery care.https://www.internationalmidwives.org/assets/files/general‐files/2020/07/cd0005_v201406_en_philosophy‐and‐model‐of‐midwifery‐care.pdf
[28]
Russell G. M. "Research as interacting dialogic processes: Implications for reflexivity" Forum Qual Sozialforsch (2002)
[35]
Wilson J. (2014)
Metrics
2
Citations
38
References
Details
Published
Apr 03, 2024
Vol/Issue
80(10)
Pages
4323-4332
License
View
Cite This Article
Mohamed Toufic El Hussein, Susan Jacoby, Matthew Mclarnon, et al. (2024). A concurrent mixed‐method study exploring the experiences of interprofessional collaboration among Canadian midwives and obstetricians. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 80(10), 4323-4332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16183
Related

You May Also Like

The qualitative content analysis process

Satu Elo, Helvi Kyngäs · 2008

15,913 citations

The integrative review: updated methodology

Robin Whittemore, Kathleen Knafl · 2005

6,220 citations

Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique

Felicity Hasson, Sinead Keeney · 2000

4,022 citations

The Delphi technique: myths and realities

Catherine Powell · 2003

1,739 citations