Jennifer Fenwick1, Mary Sidebotham2, Jenny Gamble3, Debra K Creedy4. 1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Logan Campus, University Drive, Meadowbrook, QLD 4131, Australia; Maternity, Newborn and Families Research Collaborative, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith Health, Griffith University Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia; Gold Coast University Hospital, 1 Hospital Blvd., Southport, QLD 4215, Australia. Electronic address: j.fenwick@griffith.edu.au. 2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Logan Campus, University Drive, Meadowbrook, QLD 4131, Australia; Maternity, Newborn and Families Research Collaborative, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith Health, Griffith University Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia. Electronic address: m.sidebotham@griffith.edu.au. 3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Logan Campus, University Drive, Meadowbrook, QLD 4131, Australia; Maternity, Newborn and Families Research Collaborative, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith Health, Griffith University Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia. Electronic address: j.gamble@griffith.edu.au. 4. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Logan Campus, University Drive, Meadowbrook, QLD 4131, Australia; Maternity, Newborn and Families Research Collaborative, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith Health, Griffith University Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia. Electronic address: d.creedy@griffith.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continuity of midwifery care contributes to significant positive outcomes for women and babies. There is a perception that providing continuity of care may negatively impact on the wellbeing and professional lives of midwives. AIM: To compare the emotional and professional wellbeing as well as satisfaction with time off and work-life balance of midwives providing continuity of care with midwives not providing continuity. METHOD: Online survey. Measures included; Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21; and Perceptions of Empowerment in Midwifery Scale (PEMS-Revised). The sample (n=862) was divided into two groups; midwives working in continuity (n=214) and those not working in continuity (n=648). Mann Whitney U tests were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: The continuity group had significantly lower scores on each of the burnout subscales (CBI Personal p=.002; CBI Work p<.001; CBI Client p<.001) and Anxiety (p=.007) and Depression (p=.004) sub-scales. Midwives providing continuity reported significantly higher scores on the PEMs Autonomy/Empowerment subscale (p<.001) and the Skills and Resources subscale (p=.002). There was no difference between the groups in terms of satisfaction with time off and work-life balance. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that providing continuity of midwifery care is also beneficial for midwives. Conversely, midwives working in shift-based models providing fragmented care are at greater risk of psychological distress. Maternity service managers should feel confident that re-orientating care to align with the evidence is likely to improve workforce wellbeing and is a sustainable way forward.
BACKGROUND: Continuity of midwifery care contributes to significant positive outcomes for women and babies. There is a perception that providing continuity of care may negatively impact on the wellbeing and professional lives of midwives. AIM: To compare the emotional and professional wellbeing as well as satisfaction with time off and work-life balance of midwives providing continuity of care with midwives not providing continuity. METHOD: Online survey. Measures included; Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21; and Perceptions of Empowerment in Midwifery Scale (PEMS-Revised). The sample (n=862) was divided into two groups; midwives working in continuity (n=214) and those not working in continuity (n=648). Mann Whitney U tests were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: The continuity group had significantly lower scores on each of the burnout subscales (CBI Personal p=.002; CBI Work p<.001; CBI Client p<.001) and Anxiety (p=.007) and Depression (p=.004) sub-scales. Midwives providing continuity reported significantly higher scores on the PEMs Autonomy/Empowerment subscale (p<.001) and the Skills and Resources subscale (p=.002). There was no difference between the groups in terms of satisfaction with time off and work-life balance. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that providing continuity of midwifery care is also beneficial for midwives. Conversely, midwives working in shift-based models providing fragmented care are at greater risk of psychological distress. Maternity service managers should feel confident that re-orientating care to align with the evidence is likely to improve workforce wellbeing and is a sustainable way forward.
Authors: E Brie Thumm; Denise C Smith; Allison P Squires; Ginger Breedlove; Paula M Meek Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Noelia Durán-Gómez; Jorge Guerrero-Martín; Demetrio Pérez-Civantos; Casimiro Fermín López-Jurado; Jesús Montanero-Fernández; Macarena C Cáceres Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Karin Anne Peter; Barbara Meier-Kaeppeli; Jessica Pehlke-Milde; Susanne Grylka-Baeschlin Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Nora Suleiman-Martos; Luis Albendín-García; José L Gómez-Urquiza; Keyla Vargas-Román; Lucia Ramirez-Baena; Elena Ortega-Campos; Emilia I De La Fuente-Solana Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-19 Impact factor: 3.390