↓ Skip to main content

Norwegian midwives’ opinion of their midwifery education – a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
Norwegian midwives’ opinion of their midwifery education – a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0917-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mirjam Lukasse, Anne Marie Lilleengen, Anne Margrethe Fylkesnes, Lena Henriksen

Abstract

Midwifery education in Norway has undergone radical reforms in the past few decades. In 2004, the compulsory year of paid internship was removed from the requirement to become an authorised midwife. Since then, authorisation as a midwife depends on the successful completion of a two-year full-time academic course, consisting of 50% clinical practice and 50% theoretical education. Our objective was to examine midwives' opinion of their Norwegian midwifery education in relation to their midwifery practice, comparing those educated with internship to those without. We performed a mixed-methods study based on data from a nationwide cross-sectional survey. A sample of 547 midwives completed a postal questionnaire, autumn 2014. Midwives were asked how they were educated, how their education prepared them for practice (multiple choice) and to freely comment on their midwifery education. Thematic analysis and descriptive and comparative analysis was used. Data sets were analysed independently and jointly interpreted. Of our sample, 154 (28.2%) were educated through a two-year midwifery education without internship, while 393 (71.8%) had a one-year midwifery education with internship. Compared to midwives who had internship, midwives without were four times more likely to report that their education did not, or only partially prepare them for their work as a midwife. The association lost its significance when adjusted for experience as a midwife. According to the qualitative data, the primary reason for the association was insufficient clinical practice during education. Relevant clinical placement, ample practice time with good preceptorship and internship were proposed as methods to prepare for practice as a midwife. The theory-practice gap was highlighted as another hindrance to being prepared for practice. Academisation of the midwifery education has resulted in newly qualified midwives feeling less prepared for practice. Midwives would have liked more time for clinical practice and simulation training of core midwifery clinical skills included in the education. Midwifery educations need to explore ways to achieve a good balance between practice and theory. Workplaces need to explore alternative ways to internship to assist new graduates to become confident midwives with a strong midwifery identity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 39 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 39 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 12%
Psychology 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 41 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,547,867
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,767
of 3,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,679
of 310,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#38
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.