Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41886472›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Exploring midwives' practice patterns and capacity for obstetric ultrasound imaging: Towards a multicentre longitudinal materno-foetal research readiness in a low-resource setting.

Albert Dayor Piersson, Philomena Ajanaba Asakeboba, Sarah Teiko Quartei, Rachel Mendy, Joseph Arkorful, Ama Boahene Akomah, Gilbertson Allorsey

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Albert Dayor PierssonYork St John University, School of Science, Technology & Health, Department of Diagnostic Radiography, England.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9167-0269
Philomena Ajanaba AsakebobaUniversity for Development Studies, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Advanced Nursing Practice, Tamale, Northern Region, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6508-4389
Sarah Teiko QuarteiCentre for Education, Population Health Research & Innovation, Accra, Greater Accra Region, Ghana.
Rachel MendyUniversity of the Gambia, School of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Reproductive Health, The Gambia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6320-2481
Joseph ArkorfulUniversity of Cape Coast, College of Health & Allied Sciences, School of Allied Health Sciences, Department of Imaging Technology & Sonography, Cape Coast, Central Region, Ghana.
Ama Boahene AkomahAccra Technical University, Medical Imaging Department, Accra, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0116-394X
Gilbertson AllorseySunyani Technical University, Department of Medical Imaging and Sonography, Sunyani, Bono Region, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1628-2295

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMidwives are often the first point of contact for pregnant women; yet their roles, training, and referral practices regarding obstetric ultrasound vary widely. This study aimed to explore midwives' perspectives and experiences with obstetric ultrasound across key clinical and operational domains to assess the feasibility of conducting future multicentre maternal-foetal health research and surveillance.

methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 475 practicing midwives across diverse healthcare settings in Ghana. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used to collect data on midwives' perspectives and experiences regarding obstetric ultrasound across multiple dimensions. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel.

resultsMost midwives were female, aged 26-35 years, held diploma qualifications, and practiced within district hospitals. Key ultrasound measures prioritised by midwives in the 1st trimester include gestational age, foetal viability, estimated date of delivery (EDD), number of foetuses, and the presence of an intrauterine gestational sac. Comparatively, midwives emphasize foetal anomaly detection, amniotic fluid (liquor) volume, placental location, foetal viability, and gestational age during second trimester ultrasound screening, while in the 3rd trimester screening, they prioritise foetal presentation, amniotic fluid volume, estimated foetal weight, placental location, and foetal viability. Findings suggest infrequent ultrasound reports indicating foetal anomalies. We observed a moderate perceived ability among midwives to understand foetal anomalies on obstetric ultrasound reports. Only 57.5% indicated they refer patients between one and three times for obstetric ultrasound before delivery. From the findings, it was observed that there is a predominance of sonographers undertaking obstetric ultrasound scans. Midwives may have moderate competence in interpreting obstetric ultrasound reports. An overwhelmingly positive response indicated that obstetric ultrasound improved their work performance, and a high proportion expressed interest in learning how to undertake obstetric ultrasound.

conclusionOur findings highlight the need to standardize midwifery practices and strengthen obstetric ultrasound literacy through targeted capacity-building initiatives, not only to improve clinical decision-making but also to establish a robust foundation for scalable maternal-foetal research in low-resource settings. Additionally, our study demonstrates the potential feasibility of engaging midwives as key stakeholders in multicentre maternal-foetal research initiatives.

Indexed as

MidwiferyUltrasonography, PrenatalAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGhanaHumansPregnancyResource-Limited SettingsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41886472
PMCPMC13020806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.