Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

PERCEPTIONS OF PRIVATE SECTOR MIDWIVES AND OBSTETRICIANS REGARDING COLLABORATIVE MATERNITY CARE IN THE EASTERN CAPE, SOUTH AFRICA

Margreet Wibbelink, Sindisiwe James

Abstract


The World Health Organization states that no region in the world is justified in having a caesarean section rate greater than 10 to 15% of the total number of live births. However, there has been an international increase in the rate of caesarean section deliveries and this is a concern to midwives globally. The increase is evident in South Africa and especially in the private sector and where it has been shown to be as high as 70% of the total number of live births per year. As a result, the South African public often perceives giving birth surgically as ‘normal’ and ‘safer’ than vaginal delivery. The lack of direct involvement of midwives in the care of pregnant women in the private sector is noted as one of the reasons related to the high caesarean section delivery rates. Hence, the objectives of the study were to explore and describe the perceptions of private sector midwives and obstetricians regarding the feasibility of collaboration in maternity care. The study followed a qualitative, exploratory, descriptive, contextual design. The research population included midwives and obstetricians in the private sector in the Eastern Cape. Non-probability, purposive sampling was employed using semi-structured one-to-one interviews for data collection. The study showed that midwives and obstetricians perceived a collaborative working relationship as being beneficial to maternity care. However, there are critical impediments that need to be addressed in order to achieve such a partnership. In conclusion, participants saw it possible for collaboration in midwifery care services with positive benefits to the women being attended to.


Keywords


collaborative maternity care; midwife; obstetrician; partnership; perceptions; private sector

Full Text:

PDF

References


Betran, A.P., Merialdi, M., Lauer, J.A., Bing-Shun, W. Thomas, J., Van Look, P. & Wagner, M. 2007. Rates of Caesarean Section: Analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 21, 98-113.

Chaillet, N. & Dumont, A. 2007. Evidence-based strategies for reducing Cesarean Section Rates: A meta-analysis. Birth, 34(1), 53-64.

Creswell, J.W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosingamong five approaches. 2nd edition. USA: Sage publications.

Granger, B.B., Prvu-Bettger, J., Aucoin J., Fuchs, MA., Mitchell, P.M., Holditch-Davis, D., Roth, D., Califf, R.M. & Gilliss, C.L. 2012. An academic-health service partnership in nursing: Lessons from the field. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44(1):71-79.

Gunnervik, C., Sydsjo, G., Sydsjo, A., Selling, K.E. & Josefsson, A. 2008.Attitudes towards cesarean section in a nationwide sample of obstetricians and gynaecologists.Acta Obstetricaet Gynecologica, 87, 438-444.

FIGO 2011. International Day of the Midwife, 5 May 2011: Midwives centre stage in maternal, newborn, reproductive and sexual health. [Online] available from: http://www.figo.org/news accessed 2 February 2012.

Harris, S.J., Janssen, P.A., Saxell, L., Carty, E.A., MacRae, G.S. & Petersen, K.L. 2012.Effect of a collaborative interdisciplinary maternity care program on perinatal outcomes. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184(17), 1885-1892.

International Confederation of Midwives (ICM). 2013. Essential Competencies for basic midwifery practice. [Online] Available from: http://www.internationalmidwives.org/assets/uploads/documents/CoreDocuments/ICM%20Essential%20Competencies%20for%20Basic%20Midwifery%20Practice%202010,%20revised%202013.pdf accessed 9 April 2013.

James, S., Mabenge, M. & Rala, N. 2012. Transdiciplinary collaborative training: A midwifery need. African Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, 6(4),167-170.

James, S., Wibbelink, M. & Muthige, N. 2012. Delivery method choice in the South African private sector. British Journal of Midwifery, 20(6), 406-408.

Khawaja, M., Jurdi, R. & Kabakian-Khasholian, T. 2004. Rising trends in caesarean section rates in Egypt. Birth, 31(1), 12-16.

Keeton, C. 2010. Death of the natural birth? Sunday Times, 21 March:13.

Kruske, S., Young, K., Jenkinson, B. & Catchlove, A. 2013. Maternity care providers’ perceptions of women’s autonomy and the law. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 13(84), 1-6.

McIntyre, M., Francis, K. & Chapman, Y. 2012. The struggle for contested boundaries in the move to collaborative care teams in Australian maternity care. Midwifery, 28, 298-305.

National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). 2010. National Guidance on Collaborative Maternity Care, Canberra: NHMRC.

SANC. 1990. Regulations relating to the conditions under which registered midwives and enrolled midwives may carry on their profession. Regulation R.2488, 1990. Pretoria: SANC.

Schlosberg, S. & Templer, A. 2010. Why a Caesar is not always best. Fit Pregnancy, April/May, 37-39.

Skinner, J.P. & Foureur, M. 2010. Consultation, referral, and collaboration between midwives and obstetricians: Lessons from New Zealand. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, 55(1), 28-37.

Soanes, C. & Stevenson, A. 2008. Concise Oxford Dictionary. 7th edition revised. New York: Oxford University Press.

South Africa. 2005. The Nursing Act, no 33, 2005. Pretoria: Government printer. [Online] Available from: http://www.sanc.co.za/publications.htm accessed 26 October 2013.

Tollanes, M.C., Thompson, J.M.D., Daltveit, A.K. & Irgens, L.M. 2007. Cesarean section and maternal education; secular trends in Norway, 1967-2004. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica, 86, 840-848.

Waldman, R.N. & Kennedy, H.P. 2011. Collaborative practice between obstetricians and midwives. Obstetrica Gynecologica, 118(3), 503-504.

Wiegers, H.A. & Hukkelhoven, C.W.P.W. 2010. The role of hospital midwives in the Netherlands, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 10(80), 1-9.

Willie, M.M. 2012. Caesarean section rates in large medical schemes in South Africa: an explorative descriptive study. E3 Journal of Medical Research, 1(6), 84-90.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.25159/2520-5293/164