Worldwide, increasing percentages of women are giving birth in centralized hospitals in the belief that this maximizes safety for themselves and their babies. In parallel, there is international recognition that the number of birth interventions used in the routine care of labouring women is rising. This is fuelling concern about iatrogenesis, and, particularly, maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. It also has an adverse impact on the economics of health care. National and international policy characterizes midwives as the guardians of normal childbirth. This guardianship appears to be failing. The objective of this metasynthesis is to explore midwives’ perceptions of hospital midwifery with a focus on labour ward practice to examine professional discourses around midwifery work in the current modernist, risk averse and consumerist childbirth context. Based on an iterative search strategy, 14 studies were selected for the metasynthesis. Three overarching themes were identified: ‘power and control’; ‘compliance with cultural norms’; and ‘attempting to normalize birth’. Most midwives aimed to provide what they characterized as ‘real midwifery’ but this intention was often overwhelmed with heavy workloads and the normative pressure to provide equitable care to all women. This raises questions of authenticity, both in terms of midwives living out their beliefs, and in terms of acknowledgement of the power to resist. The theoretical insights generated by the metasynthesis could have resonance for other professional and occupational groups who wish to offer autonomous individualized services in an increasingly risk-averse target driven global society.
Annandale, E. ( 1988). How midwives accomplish natural birth. Social Problems, 35(2), 95-110.
2.
Arman, M. and Rehnsfeldt, A. ( 2003). The hidden suffering among breast cancer patients: A qualitative metasynthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(4), 510-27.
3.
Arney, W.R. ( 1982). Power and the profession of obstetrics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
4.
Ashman, I. ( 2008). Deep acting and bad faith: A Sartrean treatment of emotion work. International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion , 2(3), 288-304.
5.
Beck, U. ( 1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi: SAGE.
6.
Berg, M. and Dahlberg, K. ( 2001). Swedish midwives’ care of women who are at high obstetric risk or who have obstetric complications. Midwifery , 17(4), 259-66.
7.
Blaaka, G. and Schauer Eri, T. ( 2008). Doing midwifery between different belief systems . Midwifery, 24(3), 344-52.
8.
Byrne, A. and Leonard, M., Eds. (1997). Interventions in childbirth: Women and Irish society: A sociological reader. Belfast : Beyond the Pale Publications.
9.
Crabtree, S. ( 2004). Midwives constructing ‘normal birth’ . In S. Downe (Ed.), Normal childbirth: Debate and evidence, pp. 85-99. London: Churchill Livingstone.
10.
Crozier, K., Sinclair, M., Kernohan, G. and Porter, S. ( 2007). The development of a theoretical model of competence in birth technology. Evidence Based Midwifery, 5(4), 119-24.
11.
Davies, J. and Iredale, R. ( 2006). An exploration of midwives’ perception about their role. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest, 16(4), 455-60.
12.
Davis-Floyd, R. ( 2001a). The technocratic, humanistic, and holistic paradigms of childbirth. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics , 75(S), 5-23.
13.
Davis-Floyd, R. ( 2001b). La partera profesional: Articulating identity and cultural space for a new kind of midwife in Mexico. Daughters of time: The shifting identities of contemporary midwives, Special Issue of Medical Anthropology, 20(2/3-4), http://www.davis-floyd.com/USERIMAGES/File/la%20partera%20profesional.pdf
14.
DeVries, R.,Benoit, C., van Teijlingen and Wrede, S., Eds. (2001). Birth by design: Pregnancy, maternity care and midwifery in North America and Europe. New York: Routledge .
15.
Downe, S., Ed. (2004). Normal childbirth: Evidence and debate. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
16.
Downe, S. ( 2008). Metasynthesis: A guide to knitting smoke. Evidence Based Midwifery, 6(1), 4-8.
17.
Downe, S., McCormack, C. and Beech, B. ( 2001). Labour interventions associated with normal birth . British Journal of Midwifery, 9(10), 602-6.
18.
Downe, S., Simpson, L. and Trafford, K. ( 2007). Expert intrapartum maternity care: A meta-synthesis . Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(2), 127-40.
19.
Earl, D. and Hunter, M. ( 2006). Keeping birth normal: Midwives experiences in a tertiary obstetric setting. New Zealand College of Midwives Journal , 34, 21-3.
20.
Firth, L. and Draper, H., Eds. (2004). Ethics in midwifery: Issues in contemporary practice, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Books for Midwives.
21.
Giddens, A. ( 1999). Risk and responsibility. Modern Law Review , 62(1), 1-10.
22.
Hunt, S. and Symonds, A. ( 1995). The social meaning of midwifery. London: Macmillan.
23.
Hunter, B. ( 2004). Conflicting ideologies as a source of emotion work in midwifery. Midwifery, 20(3), 261-72.
24.
Hunter, B. ( 2005). Emotion work and boundary maintenance in hospital-based midwifery. Midwifery, 21(3), 253-66.
25.
Hunter, M. ( 2003). Autonomy, clinical freedom and responsibility . In M. Kirkham (Ed.), Birth centres: A social model for maternity care, pp. 239-48. London : Books for Midwives.
26.
Hyde, A. and Roche-Reid, B. ( 2004). Midwifery practice and the crisis of modernity: Implications for the role of the midwife. Social Science and Medicine, 58(12), 2613-23.
27.
ICM. (2005). Definition of the midwife. The Hague: ICM.
28.
Jensen, L. and Allen, M. ( 1996). A synthesis of qualitative research on wellness-illness . Qualitative Health Research, 4(4), 349-69.
29.
Kargar, I. and Hunt, S., Eds. (1997). Challenges in midwifery care . London: Macmillan.
30.
Keating, A. and Flemming, V. (in press). Midwives’ experiences of facilitating normal birth in an obstetric-led unit: A feminist perspective. Midwifery.
31.
Kirkham, M. ( 1999). The culture of midwifery in the National Health Service in England. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(3), 732-9.
32.
Kirkham, M., Ed. (2000). The midwife-mother relationship. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
33.
Kirkham, M., Ed. (2003). Birth centres: A social model for maternity care. Oxford: Books for Midwives.
34.
Kirkham, M. and Perkins, E., Eds. (1997). Reflections on midwifery. London: Baillière Tindall.
35.
Kroll, D., Ed. (1996). Midwifery care for the future. London: Bailliere Tindall.
36.
Lane, K. ( 2002). Midwifery: A profession in transition. Australian Journal of Midwifery, 15(2), 26-31.
37.
Lavender, T. and Chapple, J. ( 2004). An exploration of midwives’ views of the current system of maternity care in England. Midwifery, 20(4), 324-34.
38.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. ( 1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
39.
Lipsky, M. ( 1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
40.
Mander, R. and Flemming, V., Eds. (2002). Failure to progress: The contraction of the midwifery profession. London: Routledge.
41.
Marland, H. and Rafferty, A.M., Eds. (1997). Midwives, society and childbirth: Debates and controversies in the modern period. London : Routledge.
42.
Mcwp. (2007). Making normal birth a reality: Consensus statement from the Maternity Care Working Party. London: RCM, RCOG, NCT.
43.
Mead, M. and Kornbrot, D. ( 2004). The influence of maternity units’ intrapartum intervention rates and midwives’ risk perception of women suitable for midwifery led care. Midwifery, 20(1), 61-71.
44.
NMC. (2004). Midwives rules and standards. London: Nursing and Midwifery Council (www.nmc-uk.org).
O’Driscoll, K. and Meagher, D. ( 1986). Active management of labour. London : Bailliere Tindall.
47.
Page, L., Ed. (2000). The new midwifery. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
48.
Page, L. and McCandlish, R., Eds. (2006). The new midwifery, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
49.
Paterson, B., Thorne, S., Canam, C. and Jillings, C. ( 2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research. London: SAGE.
50.
Popay, J., Rogers, A. and Williams, G. ( 1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 341-51.
51.
Porter, S., Crozier, K., Sinclair, M. and Kernohan, W.G. ( 2007). New midwifery? A qualitative analysis of midwives’ decision-making strategies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(5), 525-34.
52.
Reid, L., Ed. (2007). Midwifery, freedom to practise? An international exploration and examination of midwifery practice. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone .
53.
Robinson, S. and Thompson, A., Eds. (1989). Midwives research and childbirth, vol. 1. London: Chapman & Hall .
54.
Robinson, S. and Thompson, A., Eds. (1991). Midwives research and childbirth, vol. 2. London: Chapman & Hall .
55.
Robinson, S. and Thompson, A., Eds. (1994). Midwives research and childbirth, vol. 3. London: Chapman & Hall .
56.
Russell, K. ( 2007). Mad, bad or different? Midwives and normal birth in obstetric led units. British Journal of Midwifery, 15(3), 128-31.
57.
Sandelowski, M. ( 2000). Devices and desires: Gender technology and American nursing . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
58.
Sandelowski, M. ( 2006). ‘Meta-jeopardy’: The crisis of representation in qualitative metasynthesis. Nursing Outlook, 54(1), 10-16.
59.
Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S. and Emden, C. ( 1997). Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques . Research in Nursing and Health, 20(4), 365-71.
60.
Shallow, H. ( 2001a). Part 1. Integrating into teams: The midwife’s experience. British Journal of Midwifery, 9(1), 53-7.
61.
Shallow, H. ( 2001b). Connection and disconnection. British Journal of Midwifery, 9(2), 115-21.
62.
Shallow, H. ( 2001c). Teams and marginalisation of midwifery knowledge . British Journal of Midwifery, 9(3), 167-71.
63.
Shallow, H. ( 2001d). Competence and confidence: Working in a climate of fear . British Journal of Midwifery, 9(4), 237-44.
64.
Sinclair, M. and Gardner, J. ( 2001). Midwives’ perceptions of the use of technology in assisting childbirth in Northern Ireland. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36(2), 229-36.
65.
Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M., Noblit, G. and Sandelowski, M. ( 2004). Qualitative metasynthesis: Reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health Research , 14(10), 1342-65.
66.
Tracy, S.K., Sullivan, E., Wang, Y.A., Black, D. and Tracy, M. ( 2007). Birth outcomes associated with interventions in labour amongst low risk women: A population-based study. Women and Birth, 20(2), 41-8.
67.
Van Teijlingen, E., Lowis, G., McCaffery, P. and Porter, M., Eds. (2000). Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: Comparative perspectives. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
68.
Walsh, D. and Downe, S. ( 2005). Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204-11.
69.
Walsh, D. and Downe, S. ( 2006). Appraising the quality of qualitative research . Midwifery, 22(2), 108-19.
