910 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27498186)
61. Midwives' experiences of referring obese women to either a community or home-based antenatal weight management service: Implications for service providers and midwifery practice.
Atkinson L; French DP; Ménage D; Olander EK
Midwifery; 2017 Jun; 49():102-109. PubMed ID: 27817977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. Supporting choice and control? Communication and interaction between midwives and women at the antenatal booking visit.
McCourt C
Soc Sci Med; 2006 Mar; 62(6):1307-18. PubMed ID: 16126316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Socially disadvantaged women's views of barriers to feeling safe to engage in decision-making in maternity care.
Ebert L; Bellchambers H; Ferguson A; Browne J
Women Birth; 2014 Jun; 27(2):132-7. PubMed ID: 24355713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. Drugs and having babies: an exploration of how a specialist clinic meets the needs of chemically dependent pregnant women.
Morris M; Seibold C; Webber R
Midwifery; 2012 Apr; 28(2):163-72. PubMed ID: 21658823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. The first antenatal appointment: An exploratory study of the experiences of women with a diagnosis of mental illness.
Phillips L; Thomas D
Midwifery; 2015 Aug; 31(8):756-64. PubMed ID: 25975830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. A non-randomised trial investigating the cost-effectiveness of Midwifery Group Practice compared with standard maternity care arrangements in one Australian hospital.
Toohill J; Turkstra E; Gamble J; Scuffham PA
Midwifery; 2012 Dec; 28(6):e874-9. PubMed ID: 22172743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. Midwives' perspectives of continuity based working in the UK: A cross-sectional survey.
Taylor B; Cross-Sudworth F; Goodwin L; Kenyon S; MacArthur C
Midwifery; 2019 Aug; 75():127-137. PubMed ID: 31100484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Exploring midwives' perception of confidence around facilitating water birth in Western Australia: A qualitative descriptive study.
Nicholls S; Hauck YL; Bayes S; Butt J
Midwifery; 2016 Feb; 33():73-81. PubMed ID: 26549568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. A qualitative study of how caseload midwifery is experienced by couples in Denmark.
Jepsen I; Mark E; Foureur M; Nøhr EA; Sørensen EE
Women Birth; 2017 Feb; 30(1):e61-e69. PubMed ID: 27665216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. Exploring the value and acceptability of an antenatal and postnatal midwifery continuity of care model to women and midwives, using the Quality Maternal Newborn Care Framework.
Cummins A; Griew K; Devonport C; Ebbett W; Catling C; Baird K
Women Birth; 2022 Feb; 35(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 33741311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Midwives' views of caseload midwifery - comparing the caseload and non-caseload midwives' opinions. A cross-sectional survey of Australian midwives.
Newton M; Dawson K; Forster D; McLachlan H
Women Birth; 2021 Feb; 34(1):e47-e56. PubMed ID: 32653395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. Does continuity of carer matter to women from minority ethnic groups?
McCourt C; Pearce A
Midwifery; 2000 Jun; 16(2):145-54. PubMed ID: 11151550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. Increasing possibilities - Increasing dilemmas: A qualitative study of Swedish midwives' experiences of ultrasound use in pregnancy.
Edvardsson K; Lalos A; Åhman A; Small R; Graner Md PhD S; Mogren I
Midwifery; 2016 Nov; 42():46-53. PubMed ID: 27788415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. Exploring the qualities of midwifery-led continuity of care in Australia (MiLCCA) using the quality maternal and newborn care framework.
Cummins A; Coddington R; Fox D; Symon A
Women Birth; 2020 Mar; 33(2):125-134. PubMed ID: 30987800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. A focus group study of women's views and experiences of maternity care as delivered collaboratively by midwives and health visitors in England.
Aquino MRJV; Olander EK; Bryar RM
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2018 Dec; 18(1):505. PubMed ID: 30587163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. 'Lending the space': midwives' perceptions of birth space and clinical risk management.
Seibold C; Licqurish S; Rolls C; Hopkins F
Midwifery; 2010 Oct; 26(5):526-31. PubMed ID: 20692078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. The feasibility of caseload midwifery in rural Australia: a literature review.
Brown M; Dietsch E
Women Birth; 2013 Mar; 26(1):e1-4. PubMed ID: 23010666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. Reforming maternity services in Australia: Outcomes of a private practice midwifery service.
Wilkes E; Gamble J; Adam G; Creedy DK
Midwifery; 2015 Oct; 31(10):935-40. PubMed ID: 26092305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. Evaluating midwife-led antenatal care: choice, experience, effectiveness, and preparation for pregnancy.
Butler MM; Sheehy L; Kington MM; Walsh MC; Brosnan MC; Murphy M; Naughton C; Drennan J; Barry T
Midwifery; 2015 Apr; 31(4):418-25. PubMed ID: 25554699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
80. Gaining insight into how women conceptualize satisfaction: Western Australian women's perception of their maternity care experiences.
Lewis L; Hauck YL; Ronchi F; Crichton C; Waller L
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2016 Feb; 16():29. PubMed ID: 26846257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
