ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2025
South African midwife specialists practice: Medico-legal experts' experiences.
Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 2025. 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.
- Lived experiences of LGBTQI+ persons when accessing primary healthcare facilities in Gauteng, South Africa: An interpretative phenomenological inquiry.Curationis · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a strategy developed to revise the scope of practice to recognize midwife specialists' competencies in South Africa.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Barriers to culturally competent caring practices for LGBTQI+ persons: experiences of primary healthcare nurses in Gauteng, South Africa.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The current legislative framework hinders implementation of midwife-led models of care: South African context.BMC nursing · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medical litigations are rising and becoming a global challenge. The multilayered demands of midwifery-related conditions and the multiple responsibilities of the midwifery team contribute to possible litigations. Midwife specialists in South Africa are trained to provide specialised midwifery care to improve outcomes for patients with midwifery-related complications. While midwife specialists are equipped with specialised knowledge and skills, no specific practice regulations exist to protect them against possible medical litigations. Aim: The study aimed to explore and describe medico-legal experts' experiences of midwife specialists optimally utilising their knowledge and skills. Setting: The context of the study is the public and private sectors of South Africa. Methods: A qualitative, descriptive and contextual research design was employed. Six medico-legal experts identified through a snowball sampling technique participated in virtual, semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using Collaizi's descriptive method. Results: Three themes with subthemes emerged. Results confirmed that medico-legal experts recognised the midwife specialists' expanded knowledge and skill set. The medico-legal experts experienced a disconnect between training regulations and the current practice regulations. Midwife specialists' practice was experienced as being guided by a moral obligation rather than prescribed regulations. Conclusion: Midwife specialists are yet to receive full legal recognition in South Africa, challenging midwife specialists' assumption of autonomous and independent roles. Contribution: Midwife specialists face potential risk of involvement in medical litigations under the current legislative framework. The findings of this study may guide the formulation of a scope of practice (SOP) that legally guides midwife specialists' practice in South Africa.
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.