ReviewBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Insider knowledge as a double-edged sword: an integrative review of midwives' personal childbearing experiences.
Review in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Body maps of counter-hegemonic midwifery practices in Chile: a collective case study.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- "Returning beyond cancer"-a journey of professional reinvention for nurses.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe majority of maternity care is provided by female midwives who have either become mothers or are of childbearing age, but there is limited research exploring midwives' own personal childbearing experiences. This integrative review aims to explore the published literature and research on midwives' own experiences of pregnancy and childbirth.
methodAn integrative review of the literature was conducted after relevant articles were identified through a search of: five electronic databases (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar), cited reference lists, and networking with peers. Similar and contrasting patterns and relations within the literature were identified and grouped into themes and subthemes.
resultsTwenty articles were included in the review and four overarching themes were identified. Insider knowledge plays a role in decision making encompassed the way midwives used their knowledge to choose; a preferred mode of birth, maternity care provider, model of care, and place of birth. Navigating the childbirth journey demonstrated how some midwives were able to use their insider knowledge to achieve agency, while others had difficulty achieving agency. This theme also revealed the 'midwife brain' that midwives need to manage during their childbearing journey. The theme impact of care on the birth experience described how the type of care the midwives received from maternity care providers affected their overall birth experience. The fourth theme from midwife to mother explains their preparedness for childbirth and their transition to motherhood.
conclusionFor childbearing midwives, there is a potential conflict between their position as knowledgeable experts in maternity care, and their experience as mothers. Whilst they can use their insider knowledge to their advantage, they also experience heightened fear and anxiety through their pregnancy. It is important for maternity care providers to acknowledge and support them and provide balanced and tailored care that acknowledges the woman within the professional midwife and the professional midwife within the woman.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.