Accreditation systems for midwifery training programs worldwide: A scoping review.

IF 1.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
J. Ortiz-Contreras, Rodrigo Orellana-Cole, Pablo Galvez-Ortega, Sol East
{"title":"Accreditation systems for midwifery training programs worldwide: A scoping review.","authors":"J. Ortiz-Contreras, Rodrigo Orellana-Cole, Pablo Galvez-Ortega, Sol East","doi":"10.5867/medwave.2024.03.2800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accreditation of midwifery training programs aims to improve the quality of midwifery education and care. The study aimed to diagnose the accreditation systems of midwifery programs worldwide, identifying characteristics, standards, and differences. According to Arksey and O'Malley's framework, a scoping review was conducted by searching databases, grey literature, and accreditation system websites. A total of 2574 articles and 198 websites related to education accreditation were identified, selecting 47 that addressed midwifery programs. The results show that while a global accreditation system in midwifery from the International Confederation of Midwives exists, it has been scarcely used. There is considerable heterogeneity across accreditation systems, with higher-income countries having more robust and specific systems. In contrast, accreditation is less common in lower-income countries and often depends on international support. The diversity across accreditation systems reflects differing needs, resources, and cultural approaches. The need for standardization and global improvement of accreditation systems is highlighted. Strengthening the International Confederation of Midwives accreditation system as a global system, with standards adaptable to each country or region according to their local contexts, could be key to advancing the professionalization and recognition of midwifery worldwide.","PeriodicalId":18597,"journal":{"name":"Medwave","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medwave","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2024.03.2800","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accreditation of midwifery training programs aims to improve the quality of midwifery education and care. The study aimed to diagnose the accreditation systems of midwifery programs worldwide, identifying characteristics, standards, and differences. According to Arksey and O'Malley's framework, a scoping review was conducted by searching databases, grey literature, and accreditation system websites. A total of 2574 articles and 198 websites related to education accreditation were identified, selecting 47 that addressed midwifery programs. The results show that while a global accreditation system in midwifery from the International Confederation of Midwives exists, it has been scarcely used. There is considerable heterogeneity across accreditation systems, with higher-income countries having more robust and specific systems. In contrast, accreditation is less common in lower-income countries and often depends on international support. The diversity across accreditation systems reflects differing needs, resources, and cultural approaches. The need for standardization and global improvement of accreditation systems is highlighted. Strengthening the International Confederation of Midwives accreditation system as a global system, with standards adaptable to each country or region according to their local contexts, could be key to advancing the professionalization and recognition of midwifery worldwide.
全球助产士培训项目的认证体系:范围审查。
助产士培训项目的评审旨在提高助产士教育和护理的质量。本研究旨在对全球助产士培训项目的评审体系进行诊断,找出其特点、标准和差异。根据 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的框架,我们通过检索数据库、灰色文献和评审系统网站进行了范围界定审查。共搜索到与教育认证相关的 2574 篇文章和 198 个网站,其中 47 篇涉及助产项目。结果表明,虽然国际助产士联合会在助产士领域建立了全球评审系统,但该系统很少被使用。各认证体系之间存在很大差异,收入较高的国家拥有更健全、更具体的体系。与此相反,在低收入国家,资格认证并不常见,而且往往依赖于国际支持。评审制度的多样性反映了不同的需求、资源和文化方法。强调了认证系统标准化和全球改进的必要性。加强国际助产士联合会的认证体系,使其成为一个全球体系,并根据每个国家或地区的当地情况对标准进行调整,这可能是推动全球助产士专业化和认可的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medwave
Medwave MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
50
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medwave is a peer-reviewed, biomedical and public health journal. Since its foundation in 2001 (Volume 1) it has always been an online only, open access publication that does not charge subscription or reader fees. Since January 2011 (Volume 11, Number 1), all articles are peer-reviewed. Without losing sight of the importance of evidence-based approach and methodological soundness, the journal accepts for publication articles that focus on providing updates for clinical practice, review and analysis articles on topics such as ethics, public health and health policy; clinical, social and economic health determinants; clinical and health research findings from all of the major disciplines of medicine, medical science and public health. The journal does not publish basic science manuscripts or experiments conducted on animals. Until March 2013, Medwave was publishing 11-12 numbers a year. Each issue would be posted on the homepage on day 1 of each month, except for Chile’s summer holiday when the issue would cover two months. Starting from April 2013, Medwave adopted the continuous mode of publication, which means that the copyedited accepted articles are posted on the journal’s homepage as they are ready. They are then collated in the respective issue and included in the Past Issues section.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信