ArticleCurationis2025
Misalignment in South African midwife specialists' education and practice legal frameworks.
Article in Curationis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Obstetricians' perceptions of midwife specialists' roles in South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe midwifery specialisation is one of sixteen clinical nursing specialisations in South Africa aimed at ensuring safe and comprehensive patient care. While specific training guidelines to ensure expanded knowledge and skills amongst the midwife specialists exist, there are no relevant regulations to legalise their specialists' knowledge. Current practice regulations are unsupportive of the midwife specialists' roles in clinical settings.
objectivesThis study aimed to explore and describe the legislative framework of midwife specialists' education and practice through the lens of midwife specialists in South Africa.
methodQualitative, explorative and descriptive research was followed. Sixteen midwife specialists identified through purposive sampling participated in virtual, semi-structured focus group interviews. Data were analysed using Collaizi's descriptive method. The context of the study is the public maternal health services of South Africa.
resultsOne central theme with seven subthemes emerged. Midwife specialists verbalised their views on the current education and training regulations (R.212; R.635 and competencies of midwife specialists). The midwife specialists also shared their views on practice regulations (R.2127, R.2488, R.767 and position statements on registered midwives' allocation and participation in surgical procedures). Additionally, midwife specialists highlighted the misalignments in these regulations.
conclusionRevision of the current legislation must align the midwife specialists' education and training competencies and outcomes. The alignment of these regulations will in turn legalise their specialists' practice.Contribution: This article advocates for the regulatory body's legal recognition of midwife specialists to enable autonomous and independent practice among midwife specialists.
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.