Women's views and experiences of a new Midwifery Group Practice model in rural Australia

Laura Y Whitburn; Meabh Cullinane; Charlie Benzie; Michelle S Newton; Helen L McLachlan; Della A Forster

doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101603

Women's views and experiences of a new Midwifery Group Practice model in rural Australia

Women Birth. 2024 Apr 23;37(4):101603. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101603. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Laura Y Whitburn¹, Meabh Cullinane², Charlie Benzie³, Michelle S Newton³, Helen L McLachlan³, Della A Forster⁴

Affiliations

¹ Judith Lumley Centre, School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia; Department of Microbiology, Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Agriculture, Biomedicine and Environment, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia. Electronic address: L.Whitburn@latrobe.edu.au.
² Judith Lumley Centre, School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia.
³ Judith Lumley Centre, School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia; School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia.
⁴ Judith Lumley Centre, School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia; Royal Women's Hospital, Locked Bag 300, Grattan Street & Flemington Road, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.

PMID: 38657332
DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101603

Abstract

Background: Women in rural Australia often have limited maternity care options available, and in Victoria, like many Australian states, numerous small hospitals no longer offer birthing services.

Aim: To evaluate women's views and experiences of maternity care at a local rural hospital that re-established birthing services with a Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) model of maternity care.

Methods: Women who booked into the new MGP model from May 2021 to June 2022 were invited to complete an anonymous online survey and participate in an optional additional semi-structured interview to explore their views and experiences. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data, and open-ended survey and interview responses were analysed using a general inductive approach.

Findings: Sixty-seven percent (44/66) of women completed the survey and five also completed an interview. Women were highly satisfied with the care they received. They felt respected, empowered, and had a sense of agency throughout their pregnancies, labour and birth, and post-birth. They reported low levels of anxiety during labour and birth, and felt that they coped physically and emotionally better than they anticipated. They felt well supported by midwives and highly valued the continuity of care within the MGP model.

Conclusion: Women's voices play a critical role in informing maternity care provision, particularly for those in rural communities who may have limited access to care options. The findings support and expand on existing research regarding the value of midwifery continuity of care models, and can inform other rural maternity services in introducing similar models.

Keywords: Caseload midwifery; Continuity of care; Maternity/pregnancy care; Midwifery Group Practice; Rural; Women’s views.