↓ Skip to main content

Exploring global recognition of quality midwifery education: Vision or fiction?

Overview of attention for article published in Women & Birth, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring global recognition of quality midwifery education: Vision or fiction?
Published in
Women & Birth, June 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.wombi.2017.03.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ans Luyben, Mary Barger, Melissa Avery, Kuldip Kaur Bharj, Rhona O’Connell, Valerie Fleming, Joyce Thompson, Della Sherratt

Abstract

Midwifery education is the foundation for preparing competent midwives to provide a high standard of safe, evidence-based care for women and their newborns. Global competencies and standards for midwifery education have been defined as benchmarks for establishing quality midwifery education and practice worldwide. However, wide variations in type and nature of midwifery education programs exist. To explore and discuss the opportunities and challenges of a global quality assurance process as a strategy to promote quality midwifery education. Accreditation and recognition as two examples of quality assurance processes in education are discussed. A global recognition process, with its opportunities and challenges, is explored from the perspective of four illustrative case studies from Ireland, Kosovo, Latin America and Bangladesh. The discussion highlights that the establishment of a global recognition process may assist in promoting quality of midwifery education programs world-wide, but cannot take the place of formal national accreditation. In addition, a recognition process will not be feasible for many institutions without additional resources, such as financial support or competent evaluators. In order to achieve quality midwifery education through a global recognition process the authors present 5 Essential Challenges for Quality Midwifery Education. Quality midwifery education is vital for establishing a competent workforce, and improving maternal and newborn health. Defining a global recognition process could be instrumental in moving toward this goal, but dealing with the identified challenges will be essential.

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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 21%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Lecturer 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 14%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Linguistics 2 2%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 39 32%
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 13 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,547,867
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Women & Birth
#1,059
of 1,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,397
of 316,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Women & Birth
#9
of 10 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 1,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 316,495 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.