Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 20;25(1):728.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12694-w.

Development of a midwifery regulatory environment index using data from the Global Midwives' Associations map survey

Emma Virginia Clark  1 , Marianna LaNoue  2 , Kate Clouse  2 , Alexandra Zuber  3 , Jeremy Neal  2
Affiliations

Development of a midwifery regulatory environment index using data from the Global Midwives' Associations map survey

Emma Virginia Clark et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Global policymakers have proposed strengthening midwifery regulation to improve access to and quality of care provided by midwives, thereby enhancing maternal healthcare delivery and outcomes. However, quantifying 'midwifery regulatory environments' as a construct across countries has been difficult, limiting our ability to evaluate relationships between regulatory environments and key outcomes and hindering actionable steps toward improvement. The Global Midwives' Associations map survey includes data across five domains of regulation (overarching regulatory policy and legislation; education and qualification; licensure; registration/re-licensure; and scope and conduct of practice). We aimed to use these data to develop a composite index that represents the midwifery regulatory environment in the countries that participated in the survey.

Methods: To develop our composite Midwifery Regulatory Environment (MRE) Index, we analyzed data from 115 countries in the Global Midwives' Associations map survey. We identified five different possible scoring characterizations for thirteen regulatory items. Four characterizations used continuous or categorical cumulative scoring and one used multiple individual components scoring. We compared these characterizations using Clarke's test and descriptive model fit metrics to identify the best fit and performance for three outcomes: maternal mortality ratio, low birthweight prevalence, and stillbirth rate.

Results: The Aggregated Domain Scoring method, which assigns one point for each of the five essential regulatory domains with activity (possible score range: 0-5), was the best fit and performing characterization for maternal mortality ratio and stillbirth outcomes. The Any-or-None Scoring method, which assigns one point per survey item with regulatory activity (possible score range: 0-13), best fit low birthweight prevalence.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that developing composite characterizations of complex constructs, as exemplified by MRE Index development, can enhance the usability of existing global health datasets. Additionally, it highlights how employing model fit prediction provides a transparent, replicable, and accessible approach for identifying the optimal characterization of the construct based on a specific outcome. Specifically, we found that different characterizations for the MRE Index are preferred for different maternal health outcomes. The MRE Index we have developed stands as a valuable tool for future research exploring relationships between midwifery regulation and maternal health outcomes.

Keywords: Midwifery; Model comparison; Model selection; Regulation; Regulatory environment; Secondary data analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The Vanderbilt University Medical Center Institutional Review Board approved this study. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Conceptual framework
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Renfrew M, Homer C, Downe S, Mcfadden A, Soo & Mcfadden A, Kenney Muir N, Prentice, ten Hoope-Bender P. Midwifery: an executive summary for the Lancet’s series. 2024. https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/stories/series/midwifery/.... Accessed 31 May 2024.
    1. Nove A, Friberg IK, de Bernis L, McConville F, Moran A, Najjemba M, et al. Potential impact of midwives in preventing and reducing maternal and neonatal mortality and stillbirths: a Lives Saved Tool modeling study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(1):e24–32. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Filby A, McConville F, Portela A. What Prevents Quality Midwifery Care? A systematic mapping of barriers in low and middle income countries from the provider perspective. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0153391. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Castro Lopes S, Nove A, ten Hoope-Bender P, et al. A descriptive analysis of midwifery education, regulation and association in 73 countries: the baseline for a post-2015 pathway. Hum Resour Health. 2016;14(1):37–37. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nkowane AM, Wheeler E. Partnerships and collaboration: A means to effective regulation and practice for nursing and midwifery professions in the African region. AJM. 2014;8(2):3–3.

LinkOut - more resources