Measuring adequacy of the midwifery workforce using standards of competency and scope of work: Exploring the density and distribution of midwives in three low- and middle-income countries using cross-sectional and geospatial data

Background A global midwifery shortage hampers the goal of ending preventable maternal/newborn mortality and stillbirths. Whether current measures of midwifery workforce adequacy are valid is unknown. We compare two measures of density and distribution of midwifery professionals to assess their consistency, and explore how incorporating midwifery scope, competency, and the adjusting reference population impacts this critical metric. Methods and findings We collected a census of midwives employed in eligible facilities in our study settings, (422 in Ghana; 909 in India), assessed the number practicing within the scope of work for midwifery professionals defined in the International Labor Organization International Standard Classification of Occupations, and whether they reported possessing the ICM essential competencies for basic midwifery practice. We altered the numerator, iteratively narrowing it from a simple count to include data on scope of practice and competency and reported changes in value. We altered the denominator by calculating the number of midwives per 10,000 total population, women of reproductive age, pregnancies, and births and explored variation in the indicator. Across four districts in Ghana, density of midwives decreased from 8.59/10,000 total population when counting midwives from facility staffing rosters to 1.30/10,000 total population when including only fully competent midwives by the ICM standard. In India, no midwives met the standard, thus the midwifery density of 1.37/10,000 total population from staffing rosters reduced to 0.00 considering competency. Changing the denominator to births vastly altered subnational measures, ranging from ~1700% change in Tolon to ~8700% in Thiruvallur. Conclusion Our study shows that varying underlying parameters significantly affects the value of the estimate. Factoring in competency greatly impacts the effective coverage of midwifery professionals. Disproportionate differences were noted when need was estimated based on total population versus births. Future research should compare various estimates of midwifery density to health system process and outcome measures.

[1]  E. Kenu,et al.  Multisite, mixed methods study to validate 10 maternal health system and policy indicators in Argentina, Ghana and India: a research protocol , 2022, BMJ Open.

[2]  C. Ronsmans,et al.  A systematic review of the profile and density of the maternal and child health workforce in China , 2021, Human Resources for Health.

[3]  The State of the World's Midwifery 2021 , 2021 .

[4]  R. Verma,et al.  Effect of Maternal Healthcare Utilization on Early Neonatal, Neonatal and Post-Neonatal Mortality in India , 2021, International quarterly of community health education.

[5]  Sojib Bin Zaman,et al.  Assessment of the validity of the measurement of newborn and maternal health-care coverage in hospitals (EN-BIRTH): an observational study. , 2020, The Lancet. Global health.

[6]  C. Homer,et al.  Potential impact of midwives in preventing and reducing maternal and neonatal mortality and stillbirths: a Lives Saved Tool modelling study , 2020, The Lancet. Global health.

[7]  D. Chou,et al.  Effective coverage measurement in maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health and nutrition: progress, future prospects, and implications for quality health systems , 2020, The Lancet. Global health.

[8]  T. Tekelab,et al.  The impact of antenatal care on neonatal mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis , 2019, PloS one.

[9]  Chika Hayashi,et al.  Advances in the measurement of coverage for RMNCH and nutrition: from contact to effective coverage , 2019, BMJ Global Health.

[10]  E. Jefford,et al.  Call Us Midwives: Critical Comparison of What Is a Midwife and What Is Midwifery , 2019, International journal of childbirth.

[11]  D. Chou,et al.  Scoping review to identify and map the health personnel considered skilled birth attendants in low-and-middle income countries from 2000–2015 , 2019, PloS one.

[12]  A. Jannati,et al.  Effective coverage as a new approach to health system performance assessment: a scoping review , 2018, BMC Health Services Research.

[13]  D. Chou,et al.  Measures matter: A scoping review of maternal and newborn indicators , 2018, PloS one.

[14]  D. Chou,et al.  Ending preventable maternal mortality: phase II of a multi-step process to develop a monitoring framework, 2016–2030 , 2018, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[15]  J. Khanyola,et al.  Strengthening the Quality and Quantity of the Nursing and Midwifery Workforce: Report on Eight Years of the NEPI Project , 2018, Annals of global health.

[16]  Andrea Nove,et al.  The Midwifery services framework: What is it, and why is it needed? , 2018, Midwifery.

[17]  Z. Matthews,et al.  The ‘Dream Team’ for sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn and adolescent health: an adjusted service target model to estimate the ideal mix of health care professionals to cover population need , 2017, Human Resources for Health.

[18]  R. Scheffler,et al.  Global Health Workforce Labor Market Projections for 2030 , 2016, Human Resources for Health.

[19]  Zulfiqar A. Bhutta,et al.  Systematic review on human resources for health interventions to improve maternal health outcomes: evidence from low- and middle-income countries , 2016, Human Resources for Health.

[20]  Catherine Linard,et al.  Disaggregating Census Data for Population Mapping Using Random Forests with Remotely-Sensed and Ancillary Data , 2015, PloS one.

[21]  A. Malata,et al.  Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care , 2014, The Lancet.

[22]  Jai K. Das,et al.  Essential interventions for maternal, newborn and child health: background and methodology , 2014, Reproductive Health.

[23]  W. V. Lerberghe,et al.  Improvement of maternal and newborn health through midwifery , 2014, The Lancet.

[24]  Z. Matthews,et al.  The state of the world's midwifery: a universal pathway, a woman's right to health , 2014 .

[25]  Jai K Das,et al.  Can available interventions end preventable deaths in mothers, newborn babies, and stillbirths, and at what cost? , 2014, The Lancet.

[26]  C. Aluttis,et al.  The workforce for health in a globalized context – global shortages and international migration , 2014, Global health action.

[27]  Claire Glenton,et al.  A systematic review of qualitative evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of task-shifting in midwifery services. , 2013, Midwifery.

[28]  E. Teijlingen The State of the World’s Midwifery , 2011, International Journal of Childbirth.

[29]  J. Fullerton,et al.  The International Confederation of Midwives essential competencies for basic midwifery practice. an update study: 2009-2010. , 2011, Midwifery.

[30]  Zulfiqar A Bhutta,et al.  Stillbirths: what difference can we make and at what cost? , 2011, The Lancet.

[31]  N. R. van den Broek,et al.  Skilled birth attendance‐lessons learnt , 2009, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[32]  O. Campbell,et al.  Strategies for reducing maternal mortality: getting on with what works , 2006, The Lancet.

[33]  Samina S Farooqi,et al.  The World Health Report 2005 - Make Every Mother and Child Count , 2005, Annals of Saudi Medicine.

[34]  C. Dolea,et al.  World Health Organization , 1949, International Organization.

[35]  B. Stoll,et al.  Reducing Neonatal Mortality and Morbidity , 2003 .

[36]  A. Hallums The midwife. , 1988, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[37]  Katarina Jean Te Huia [Midwifery practice]. , 1951, Babiski vestnik.