A narrative review of Master's programs in midwifery across selected OECD countries: Organizational aspects, competence goals and learning outcomes.

Shifting midwifery education to a university level is of great importance for healthcare systems worldwide by preparing graduates for current and future challenges. Some of them referring to management, research and teaching tasks as well as advanced practitioner roles, require competences that can only be acquired in a Master's program. The objectives of this narrative review are to outline the differences and commonalities of organizational aspects of Master's programs in selected OECD countries and to point out the competence goals and learning outcomes they are based on. Fifteen Master's programs in twelve OECD countries were identified and analyzed. Considering the organizational characteristics, differences are found in admission requirements and qualification levels, while similarities relate to the awarded title (MSc). All programs aim to develop abilities for research to advance midwifery practice. Leadership and management abilities are addressed through effective teamwork and communication. The programs' aims are to develop abilities for midwifery education tasks. Whereas competence goals mostly align across the programs, they are addressed differently through various learning outcomes. Development and enhancement of Master's programs in midwifery are needed by focusing on core elements, such as common competence goals. It is equally important to adapt them to national healthcare and educational systems.

Assessment of the relevance of midwifery competencies in academic education in Germany from the midwives' perspective: A structural analysis of cross-sectional survey data.

INTRODUCTION: The acquisition of academic competencies is one of the main outcomes of the academization of midwifery education. To analyze midwives' views on the key academic competencies of the recently reformed midwifery education in Germany, an existing assessment instrument was adapted to the German context of care and psychometrically analyzed. Furthermore, it was investigated whether the relevance assessments of academic and non-academic midwives differ from each other. METHODS: The study design was cross-sectional. A total of 193 (prospective) midwives answered the items on the assessed relevance of midwifery competencies in academic education (59 items); 3 items were added (referring to evidence-based practice and digital literacy). Construct validity was tested using exploratory factor analysis. Item and reliability analysis as well as unpaired t-tests were performed. RESULTS: Considering insufficient item-construct associations (20 items), a single factorial solution best fits the data (eigenvalue: 18.36; explained variance: 29.60%). Internal reliability was demonstrated to be very good with Cronbach's α=0.954. The assessed relevance of academic midwifery competencies from academic and non-academic midwives did not differ significantly from each other for students and trainee midwives (t=0.18; df=6.66; p=0.86), and for for midwives educated at vocational school and university (t= -0.035; df=106; p=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The adapted assessment tool can be used with minor modifications to reliably and validly measure the assessed relevance of academic competence from the midwives' perspective. Combined with data on the assessments of medical practitioners and laypersons, the assessment provides a substantial data basis for the development of a competence profile for academic midwifery education in Germany.