ArticleEuropean journal of midwifery2024
Predicting collaborative practice between midwives and obstetricians: A regression analysis.
Article in European journal of midwifery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interprofessional collaboration is critical for woman-centred SRMNAH services.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Strengthening community-based doula and clinician partnerships through implementation and dissemination science approaches: a mixed-methods pilot study.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- A balancing act: Primary care midwives screening for fetal growth restriction- a focus group study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- Interprofessional Collaboration in Obstetric and Midwifery Care-Multigroup Comparison of Midwives' and Physicians' Perspective.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEffective collaborative practice between midwives and obstetricians improves patient safety and obstetrical outcomes, but its implementation remains challenging. Therefore, its determinants need to be better understood. This study examined factors impacting collaborative practice (CP) between these professional groups.
methodsThis study was a cross-sectional survey that took place in Swiss hospital labor wards in 2021. Collaborative practice perceptions of 70 midwives (57.4% response rate) and 44 obstetricians (29.0% response rate) were assessed using the Interprofessional Collaboration Scale, with the score serving as the main outcome. A total of 13 individual, behavioral, and organizational predictors were analyzed by multiple linear regression.
resultsParticipants rated collaborative practice with a median score of 3.1 (IQR: 2.8-3.4) out of a maximum score of 4.0. Results showed that five predictors significantly influenced collaborative practice: type of profession (β= -0.180; 95% CI: -0.296 - -0.040, p=0.011), trust/respect (β=0.343; 95% CI: 0.085-0.040, p=0.000), shared visions/goals (β=0.218; 95% CI: 0.030-0.204, p=0.009), workplace (β=0.253; 95% CI: 0.089-0.445, p=0.004) and shared power (β=0.163; 95% CI: 0.042-0.222, p=0.015). The model explained 66% of the variance (adjusted R2) in collaborative practice in labor wards.
conclusionsThis study has identified key factors influencing CP in Swiss labor wards: workplace characteristics that require tailored CP models, and a power-sharing culture that fosters trust, respectful interactions and shared goals, requiring active exchange between midwives and obstetricians.
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.