Experience of contraceptive care by midwives for nonpostpartum individuals in the Netherlands: A mixed methods study

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Merel Sprenger , Megan D. Newton , Renee N.N. Finkenflügel , Matty R. Crone , Jessica C. Kiefte-de Jong , M. Nienke Slagboom
{"title":"Experience of contraceptive care by midwives for nonpostpartum individuals in the Netherlands: A mixed methods study","authors":"Merel Sprenger ,&nbsp;Megan D. Newton ,&nbsp;Renee N.N. Finkenflügel ,&nbsp;Matty R. Crone ,&nbsp;Jessica C. Kiefte-de Jong ,&nbsp;M. Nienke Slagboom","doi":"10.1016/j.midw.2025.104362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Since 2015, Dutch midwives have been authorised to prescribe all contraception. Initially providing contraceptive care to postpartum clients, they increasingly offer it to anyone. It remains unknown how this broader population experiences this care. Therefore, this mixed methods study aims to explore experiences of nonpostpartum individuals receiving contraceptive care from Dutch primary care midwives. At 15 practices in the Netherlands, participants were recruited to complete a survey and participate in an in-depth semi-structured interview, both based on Levesque's Conceptual Framework of Access to Health. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied to survey data (<em>n</em> = 91) and thematic analysis to interview data (<em>n</em> = 10). Most survey participants (87.8 %) received an intrauterine device during their appointment. A majority (58.2 %) rated their care a 10 out of 10. Giving full marks was significantly associated with a higher perceived income (adjusted OR = 3.19, 95 % CI = 1.21–8.81, <em>p</em> = 0.021), adjusted for appointment type and time since appointment. Participants reported receiving understandable information, being taken seriously, and having enough time during their appointment. Interviews revealed that participants especially appreciate how midwives make them feel at ease, midwives’ expertise, and the convenience of access. To conclude, given the positive experiences reported by nonpostpartum individuals with contraceptive care from midwives, efforts should be made to improve task sharing and to increase awareness of midwives as contraception providers. Future research should compare care experiences across all types of providers (including midwives, general practitioners, abortion doctors, and gynaecologists) amongst a more representative population.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18495,"journal":{"name":"Midwifery","volume":"145 ","pages":"Article 104362"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613825000816","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since 2015, Dutch midwives have been authorised to prescribe all contraception. Initially providing contraceptive care to postpartum clients, they increasingly offer it to anyone. It remains unknown how this broader population experiences this care. Therefore, this mixed methods study aims to explore experiences of nonpostpartum individuals receiving contraceptive care from Dutch primary care midwives. At 15 practices in the Netherlands, participants were recruited to complete a survey and participate in an in-depth semi-structured interview, both based on Levesque's Conceptual Framework of Access to Health. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied to survey data (n = 91) and thematic analysis to interview data (n = 10). Most survey participants (87.8 %) received an intrauterine device during their appointment. A majority (58.2 %) rated their care a 10 out of 10. Giving full marks was significantly associated with a higher perceived income (adjusted OR = 3.19, 95 % CI = 1.21–8.81, p = 0.021), adjusted for appointment type and time since appointment. Participants reported receiving understandable information, being taken seriously, and having enough time during their appointment. Interviews revealed that participants especially appreciate how midwives make them feel at ease, midwives’ expertise, and the convenience of access. To conclude, given the positive experiences reported by nonpostpartum individuals with contraceptive care from midwives, efforts should be made to improve task sharing and to increase awareness of midwives as contraception providers. Future research should compare care experiences across all types of providers (including midwives, general practitioners, abortion doctors, and gynaecologists) amongst a more representative population.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Midwifery
Midwifery 医学-护理
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
221
审稿时长
13.4 weeks
期刊介绍: Midwifery publishes the latest peer reviewed international research to inform the safety, quality, outcomes and experiences of pregnancy, birth and maternity care for childbearing women, their babies and families. The journal’s publications support midwives and maternity care providers to explore and develop their knowledge, skills and attitudes informed by best available evidence. Midwifery provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and discussion of advances in evidence, controversies and current research, and promotes continuing education through publication of systematic and other scholarly reviews and updates. Midwifery articles cover the cultural, clinical, psycho-social, sociological, epidemiological, education, managerial, workforce, organizational and technological areas of practice in preconception, maternal and infant care. The journal welcomes the highest quality scholarly research that employs rigorous methodology. Midwifery is a leading international journal in midwifery and maternal health with a current impact factor of 1.861 (© Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2016) and employs a double-blind peer review process.
×
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