Author
Listed:
- Boe Calvert
(University of Technology, Sydney (School of Nursing and Midwifery)
Burnet Institute (Women’s, Children’s and Adolescent’s Health))
- Caroline S. E. Homer
(University of Technology, Sydney (School of Nursing and Midwifery)
Burnet Institute (Women’s, Children’s and Adolescent’s Health))
- Sarah Bar-Zeev
(University of Technology, Sydney (School of Nursing and Midwifery)
Burnet Institute (Women’s, Children’s and Adolescent’s Health))
- Alicia Ferguson
(Burnet Institute (Women’s, Children’s and Adolescent’s Health))
- Vanessa Scarf
(University of Technology, Sydney (School of Nursing and Midwifery))
Abstract
Background Midwives are essential in achieving universal health coverage targets and the health targets of the Sustainable Development Goals, yet a significant global shortfall exists in the midwifery workforce. Economic evaluations of midwifery are scarce but can assist in supporting evidence-informed decision-making for sustainable and equitable health care for women and girls. Objectives This review aimed to systematically identify, map and report on available literature regarding economic evaluations conducted on midwifery service provision and the midwifery workforce in all settings. Methods A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and run in six health databases. Peer-reviewed studies and unpublished research theses conducting economic evaluations on midwifery service provision or midwifery workforce strategies were included. Sources were limited to English-language literature published in the past 20 years. Identified sources were screened and reviewed, and data from included sources were extracted, reviewed, mapped and synthesised to report findings. Quality appraisal was conducted on all included sources using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations. Results A total of 32 studies were included in the review. Most were from high-income countries (26/32), and very few were from low- and middle-income countries (6/32). The quality of included studies varied greatly. Under half of the studies conducted full economic evaluations (15/32), and the remainder were partial economic evaluations (17/32). Most studies evaluated midwifery service provision (29/32) through either midwife-led models of care (15/29) or by place of birth (13/29), mostly for low-risk women (23/29) from the perspective of healthcare funders. Evaluation of midwifery education programs was less common, and these were all conducted in low- and middle-income countries (3/32). Most studies concluded that midwifery service provision was cost-saving, cost-effective or cost-beneficial. Conclusions Our review identified a significant gap in economic evaluation of midwifery from low- and middle-income countries. However, there is ongoing need for robust, quality economic evaluations on midwifery service provision and workforce strategies in all global regions. Such studies would further support health policymakers and governments to make evidence-informed decisions to address midwifery workforce shortages and provision of evidence-based and respectful care that meets the healthcare needs of women and girls.
Suggested Citation
Boe Calvert & Caroline S. E. Homer & Sarah Bar-Zeev & Alicia Ferguson & Vanessa Scarf, 2025.
"A Scoping Review Mapping Economic Evaluations of Midwifery Service Provision and the Midwifery Workforce,"
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 823-840, September.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00962-z
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00962-z
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00962-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.