ArticleJournal of midwifery & women's health
Midwives and Obstetrician-Gynecologists in the US Maternity Care System: Complementary Growth.
Article in Journal of midwifery & women's health. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPersistent shortages in the US maternity care workforce have prompted repeated policy calls to expand access to midwifery. Federal and professional organizations have positioned midwives as potential substitutes for obstetrician-gynecologists to fill gaps created by declining obstetric capacity. Economic theory suggests professions may operate as substitutes, complements, or independently. If midwives and obstetrician-gynecologists are substitutes, growth in one would offset the other; if complements, both would expand together; and, if independent, workforce changes would be unrelated. Determining which relationship exists is critical for efficient workforce investment and planning, particularly as national efforts to address maternity care shortages intensify. The aim of this study was to measure the correlation between the growth of the midwifery and obstetrician-gynecologist workforces to determine whether they have functioned as substitutes, compliments, or independent professions within the US maternity care system.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of workforce changes between 2011 and 2023 using data from the Area Health Resources File, the American Midwifery Certification Board, and CDC WONDER. Workforce density was calculated as providers per 1,000 live births. Correlation coefficients between changes in midwife and obstetrician-gynecologist density were estimated nationally and stratified by state regulatory environments.
resultsBetween 2011 and 2023, both obstetrician-gynecologist density and midwife density increased. Changes in midwife and obstetrician-gynecologist density were positively correlated (r = 0.63; P < .001), indicating complementary workforce growth. This relationship persisted across states with independent and restricted midwifery regulations. DISCUSSION: Midwives and obstetrician-gynecologists function as complementary professions in the US maternity workforce, with growth in one profession associated with growth in the other. Workforce planning and policy should account for the complementary relationship between midwives and obstetrician-gynecologists. Integrated funding strategies, reimbursement models, and workforce projections may better support access to high-quality maternal health care.
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.