gms | German Medical Science

2nd International Conference of the German Society of Midwifery Science (DGHWi)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hebammenwissenschaft e. V.

21.02.2014, Kassel

Professional situation of indpendent midwives in Germany – a descriptive report of methods and results of a nationwide survey

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • author Nina Reitis - University of the West of Scottland (UWS), United Kingdom; Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg (HAW Hamburg), Hamburg, Germany
  • Jean Rankin - University of the West of Scotland (UWS), School of Health, Nursing and Midwifery, United Kingdom
  • Christine Färber - Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (HUAS), Department Public Health, Hamburg, Germany

German Association of Midwifery Science. 2nd International Meeting of the German Association of Midwifery Science. Kassel, 21.-21.02.2014. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2014. Doc14dghwiV4

doi: 10.3205/14dghwi04, urn:nbn:de:0183-14dghwi047

This is the English version of the article.
The German version can be found at: http://www.egms.de/de/meetings/dghwi2014/14dghwi04.shtml

Published: February 18, 2014

© 2014 Reitis et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.


Outline

Text

Background: “Midwife” is one of the oldest and most traditional occupations worldwide and based on a preventive, salutogenic approach. The ultimate target of midwifery is to maintain, or restore, the health of pregnant women, mothers and children [1]. Thus, it is important from a health and social perspective to understand the working conditions of the profession. In their daily work midwives are exposed to several work-related requirements, which may take a considerable influence on the psychological and physiological work capacity / resilience and their health status [2]. The activities of professionally independent midwives have repeatedly and drastically changed over the course of the last 50 years due to economic, social, medical and cultural changes [3], [4], [5]. For several years, the professional midwifery associations have continually complained about inappropriate payment for midwifery care and a lack of appreciation by society. At the same time, the professional needs of independent midwives working in Germany have hardly been explored [6]. Furthermore, there are no reliable data on essential factors of independent midwifery practice which include: the actual amount of work, the income and structures of the different working models (freelance and / or hired). Another unexplored factor relates to personal resources which are fostered by this particular work with its specific requirements [7]. The aim of this study is to analyse these occupational requirements and the working conditions of professionally independent midwives in Germany and to suggest prospects for potential future work models of professional midwifery.

Methods: An exploratory experts’ conference at the HAW and in-depth expert interviews with stakeholders, experts and scholars were employed for the development of a standardised survey instrument [8], [9]. These participatory approaches detect in fuller detail the previously unexplored aspects of professional midwifery in Germany [10]. For the standardised data collection seven different categories were formed: (1) socio-demographic data, (2) scope of work, (3) midwifery services offered, (4) changes in the services offered, (5) mental stress standardized questionnaire (short form of the COPSOQ), (6) income and (7) open-ended questions to assess the current professional and personal situation. The responses were analysed using SPSS Vol 19. For the Germany-wide survey, a random sample (n=1,000) of legally insured midwives was drawn from the Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services (BGW – Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege). The dispatch and answer period for the standardised survey instrument ran from May to July 2012. A reminder was sent to all participants in June. The response rate was 22.3 percent.

First results: Descriptive analyses of the sample document the following results: (1) socio-demographic data, (2) workload (hours / week), (3) services offered, (4) work experience, (5) business model (employed / self-employed), (6) income. The results show very heterogeneous work-models which vary regarding working hours per week and income.


References

1.
WHO. Health topics. Midwifery. 2013. Available at: http://www.who.int/topics/midwifery/en/ [demand paging: 06-02-2013]. External link
2.
Nienhaus A. Unfälle und Berufskrankheiten bei Hebammen. In: Gefährdungsprofile - Unfälle und arbeitsbedingte Erkrankungen in Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege. Landsberg/Lech: ecomed Medizin; 2010. S. 63–73.
3.
Wolber E. Hintergundinformationen zur E-Petition des Deutschen Hebammenverbandes (DHV). 2010.
4.
Sayn-Wittgenstein F zu, Hrsg. Geburtshilfe neu denken. Bericht zur Situation und Zukunft des Hebammenwesens in Deutschland. 1. Aufl. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber; 2007.
5.
Bund Deutscher Hebammen e.V. (BDH). Zwischen Bevormundung und beruflicher Autonomie Die Geschichte des Bundes Deutscher Hebammen. Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag; 2006.
6.
Albrecht M, Loos S, Sander M, Schliwen A, Wolfschütz A. Versorgungs- und Vergütungssituation in der außerklinischen Hebammenhilfe. Ergebnisbericht für das Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Berlin: IGES; 2012.
7.
Deutscher Hebammenverband (DHV). Die Petition. 2010. Available at: http://www.hebammenverband.de/index.php?id=1341 [demand paging: 11-16-2011]. External link
8.
Bogner A, Menz W. Die methodologische Mehrdeutigkeit des Experteninterviews. In: Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W, Hrsg. Das Experteninterview – Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich; 2009. S. 33-9.
9.
Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Carlifornia: Sage Publications; 2007.
10.
Diekmann A. Empirische Sozialforschung – Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt; 2010.
11.
Nübling M, Vomstein M, Schmidt SG, Gregersen S, Dulon M, Nienhaus A. Psychosocial work load and stress in the geriatric care. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:428. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-428 External link