ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Clinical judgement processes of midwives engaged in in-hospital midwife-led births: a qualitative exploratory study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundJapan is facing a significant shortage of obstetricians, particularly in rural areas. To address this problem, the government has been promoting in-hospital midwife-led care to shift certain responsibilities from obstetricians to midwives. The essence of in-hospital midwife-led care lies in the midwives’ judgement and effective practices. This study aimed to understand the clinical judgement process of midwives who provide in-hospital midwife-led births.
methodsThis study employed a qualitative exploratory design using participant observation and think-aloud with nine midwives across three hospitals in Japan. Observations focused on midwives’ clinical behaviours during the first stage of birth. The midwives verbalised their clinical judgements as soon as possible. When they were unable to verbalise, we asked them to describe how they perceived the labouring woman and the type of care or actions they considered engaging in. Data from participant observations and linguistic data gathered during think-aloud were recorded on video. We analysed the data by combining participant observation with clinical judgement using content analysis.
resultsWe extracted seven key categories that characterise the clinical judgement processes for midwives during delivery: (1) Predicting the condition of labouring women and determining the initial direction of care upon taking responsibility; (2) Gathering information by asking questions in different ways to identify minor changes in labouring women’s condition; (3) Examining the cause of the problem from available information to uncover and determine the root cause; (4) Predicting birth progress and determining care based on information beyond internal examinations; (5) Instantly modifying the direction of care based on labouring women’s condition; (6) Determining what care should be provided immediately based on predictions of birth progression; and (7) Providing continuous care based on labouring women’s responses to care.
conclusionsMidwives engaged in in-hospital midwife-led births demonstrated heightened sensitivity to even subtle changes during delivery. They gathered nuanced information through the five senses to predict the progress of birth and provide care. They modified the direction of their care based on the women’s responses and provided the best care for the women on a continuous basis.
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.