↓ Skip to main content

Students’ understanding of “Women-Centred Care Philosophy” in midwifery care through Continuity of Care (CoC) learning model: a quasi-experimental study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
307 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Students’ understanding of “Women-Centred Care Philosophy” in midwifery care through Continuity of Care (CoC) learning model: a quasi-experimental study
Published in
BMC Nursing, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12912-015-0072-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yanti Yanti, Mora Claramita, Ova Emilia, Mohammad Hakimi

Abstract

The philosophy of midwifery education is based on the 'Women-centred care' model, which provides holistic care to women. Continuity of care (CoC) is integral to the concept of holistic women-centred care and fundamental to midwifery practice. The objective of this study was to determine any differences in students' understanding of midwifery care philosophy between students who underwent the CoC learning model and those who underwent the fragmented care learning model. We used a quasi-experiment design. This study was conducted by all final year midwifery students at two schools of midwifery in Indonesia. Fifty four students from one school attended 6 months of clinical training using the CoC learning model. The control group was comprised of 52 students from the other school. These students used the conventional clinical training model (the fragmented care learning model). The independent T-test using SPSS was used to analyse the differences between the two groups of students in terms of understanding midwifey care philosophy in five aspects (personalized, holistic, partnership, collaborative, and evidence-based care). There were no significant differences between the groups before interventon. There were significant differences between the two groups after clinical training (p < 0.01). The mean post-clinical score of students using all five aspects of the CoC clinical learning model (15.96) was higher than that of the students in the control group (10.65). The CoC clinical learning model was shown to be a unique learning opportunity for students to understand the philosophy of midwifery. Being aligned with midwifery patients and developing effective relationships with them offered the students a unique view of midwifery practice. This also promoted an increased understanding of the philosophy of women-centred care. Zero maternal mortality rate was found in the experiment group. The results of this study suggest that clinical trainingwith a CoC learning model is more likely to increase students' understanding of midwifery care philosophy. This in turn improves the quality ofclinical care, thereby enhancing overall health benefits for women.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 <1%
Unknown 305 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 63 21%
Student > Master 36 12%
Lecturer 23 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 4%
Other 30 10%
Unknown 126 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 117 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 14%
Psychology 6 2%
Social Sciences 4 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 <1%
Other 12 4%
Unknown 122 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2015.
All research outputs
#18,407,102
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#578
of 748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,580
of 265,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#18
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.