Evaluation of midwifery care: results from a survey in rural Guatemala
In an effort to reduce infant and maternal morbidity and mortality in developing countries, the World Health Organization has promoted the training of traditional birth attendants (midwives) and their incorporation into the formal health care system. In this paper, we examine several aspects of the integration of traditional and biomedical maternity care that are likely to reflect the quality of care received by Guatemalan women. Specifically, we examine the extent to which women combine traditional and biomedical pregnancy care, the frequency with which midwives refer women to biomedical providers, the content and quality of care offered by midwives, and the effects of midwife training programs on referral practices and quality of care. The analysis is based on data from the 1995 Guatemalan Survey of Family Health. The results offer a mixed assessment of the efficacy of midwife training programs. For example, although trained midwives are much more likely than other midwives to refer their clients to biomedical providers, most pregnant women do not see a biomedical provider, and the quality of midwife care, as defined and measured in this study, is similar between trained and untrained midwives.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 4 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:4:p:685-700. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.