Researchers used a qualitative descriptive phenomenological design to examine students’ experiences of midwifery practices in online education. They selected participants through criterion sampling, a type of purposive sampling. To be eligible, students had to have received online education for at least one month and have taken practice courses during that period. The team prepared a semi-structured interview form after reviewing the literature and seeking expert opinions. Face-to-face interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ permission, transcribed and analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis supported by descriptive analysis.

The analysis was supported by the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills Model as a complementary theoretical framework. Codes, categories and themes were developed from the students’ responses and then interpreted within that framework. The analysis identified problems with technological infrastructure, restricted access to practical-training materials and too few opportunities to perform clinical applications. Students were also concerned about their ability to connect theoretical knowledge with practice. The study reports these as interview findings, rather than as measured effects on clinical competence or educational outcomes.

The sample was small and drawn from a single Turkish university: 12 students who met the criteria for participation. As a qualitative study, the research was designed to characterize experiences rather than estimate how frequently the reported difficulties occur among all midwifery students. The findings do not establish that online or hybrid education necessarily causes inadequate preparation, nor do they test whether particular teaching arrangements would resolve the problems reported. Instead, the interviews document how this group of students experienced practical components of an online midwifery program.

Based on the reported barriers, the authors called for stronger practical learning opportunities in online and hybrid education models. Their proposed approaches included improved technological infrastructure, enhanced instructor support and alternative clinical learning experiences. These suggestions were not evaluated as interventions in the study, so the research does not demonstrate that any one of them would improve students’ clinical skills or professional readiness. What it does show is that the participants perceived a gap between the demands of practice-based midwifery education and the opportunities available to them through online study.

Subject of Research: Student experiences of practical midwifery education delivered online in Turkey

Article Title: Experiences in midwifery practices in online education from the student perspective: a phenomenological study

Article References: Yalçın, E., Bayraktar, E., & Bektaş, O. (2026). Experiences in midwifery practices in online education from the student perspective: a phenomenological study. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10377-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10377-6

Keywords: midwifery education, online learning, distance education, clinical training, student experience, qualitative research, phenomenology, technological barriers, professional readiness, Experiences, midwifery, practices

The researchers followed PRISMA recommendations and searched MEDLINE, Embase and ERIC for records published from 10 January 2000 to 10 January 2025. In response to peer-review recommendations, they extended the search through 10 January 2026 and added APA PsycINFO and CINAHL, accessed through EBSCOhost. Two reviewers independently extracted information using a piloted form covering the context of curriculum development, cited professional and legal frameworks, use of evidence, curriculum elements and modules, interprofessional education, and decision-making steps. The updated and supplementary searches did not identify further eligible studies.

Of 4,478 records screened, two studies met the inclusion criteria. Both concerned curriculum development within university-based midwifery education rather than a broader range of midwifery training settings. Their reported approaches had several elements in common: curricula were aligned with professional standards, stakeholders participated in development, evidence-informed methods were used, and interprofessional learning was considered. The studies therefore offered limited examples of the processes used to determine curriculum content and structure.

The review also identified important gaps in the available research. Reporting of decision-making processes was limited, and methodological transparency was generally insufficient across the two included studies. One study had been published more than a decade earlier, further limiting the currency of the evidence base. The authors concluded that the literature documenting curriculum development and decision-making in midwifery education is very limited. They called for greater methodological transparency and further research to strengthen the evidence supporting curriculum development, with the broader aim of informing educational programmes that reflect contemporary professional and societal needs. Because only two studies were included, the review does not establish a common curriculum-development model or support conclusions about the effects of any particular curriculum approach.

Subject of Research: Systematic review of curriculum development and decision-making in university-based midwifery education

Article Title: Curriculum development in midwifery education: a systematic literature review

Article References: Pierron, A., Vermeulen, J., Pavlou, M. A. S., Friedel, M., & Ghanchi, A. (2026). Curriculum development in midwifery education: a systematic literature review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10126-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10126-9

Keywords: midwifery education, curriculum development, systematic review, PRISMA, university-based education, competency-based education, professional standards, stakeholder involvement, interprofessional learning, evidence-informed practice, Curriculum, development

Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 participants: 10 midwifery educators from three nursing and midwifery training institutions and teaching hospitals in northern Malawi, and three deans of nursing and midwifery faculties. Content analysis was then used to examine the interview data and identify emerging themes. These findings represent the experiences reported by the study’s participants rather than an estimate of how frequently each challenge occurs across Malawi or elsewhere in the country.

The abstract distinguishes three reported challenges—multiple roles, inadequate clinical teaching space and inadequate clinical supervision—from several reported facilitating conditions, including access to clinical and policy guidelines, good clinical preparation and cordial working relationships. The authors stated that tailored interventions are needed to support midwifery educators in clinical teaching settings and to help translate theory into practice more effectively in clinical areas. They said the findings have implications for midwifery education and practice and could inform policy and practice changes aimed at improving midwifery education in Malawi and similar contexts.

The supplied evidence is an abstract rather than the complete article, so it does not provide the interview questions, the full analysis or participant quotations, and the reported conclusions should be understood as the authors’ interpretation of the qualitative findings.

Subject of Research: Experiences and reported barriers and facilitators in clinical midwifery education in northern Malawi

Article Title: Exploring the experiences of midwifery educators in clinical teaching settings in Northern Malawi

Article References: Chikuni, B. C., Lungu, F., Bvumbwe, T., Mbakaya, B. C., & Funsani, P. (2026). Exploring the experiences of midwifery educators in clinical teaching settings in Northern Malawi. BMC Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-026-05351-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12912-026-05351-y

Keywords: midwifery education, clinical teaching, northern Malawi, qualitative study, semi-structured interviews, midwifery educators, clinical supervision, teaching space, clinical guidelines, nursing and midwifery faculties, Exploring, experiences

The research team followed the PRISMA-ScR framework, the recognized reporting standard for scoping reviews, searching Scopus, PubMed, and ScienceDirect on 12 January 2026 for English-language publications from January 2014 to December 2025. They supplemented the database searches with a targeted sweep of organizational websites, including those of the World Health Organization and the International Confederation of Midwives, because many normative documents governing midwifery education are never indexed in bibliographic databases. From 1,051 records identified, the team screened 1,046 titles and abstracts, assessed 22 full-text reports, and ultimately included 17 sources: empirical studies, reviews, conceptual analyses, and two policy frameworks drawn from Rwanda, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Bangladesh, Malawi, and multi-country LMIC networks. The heterogeneity of the corpus forced the authors to make an important analytical distinction between direct evidence, meaning studies that explicitly examined research-related conditions within midwifery education settings, and contextual evidence, meaning sources that illuminated broader structural or policy conditions without studying institutional research culture itself. Ten sources qualified as direct evidence and seven as contextual, a split that shaped how cautiously the findings could be interpreted.

At the heart of the review lies a conceptual clarification that matters for anyone designing interventions. The authors separate three related but distinct ideas: research culture, the institutional norms, values, and practices that determine whether research is recognized and sustained; research capacity, the knowledge, skills, resources, and infrastructure needed to actually conduct studies; and research engagement, the observable participation of educators in scholarly writing, collaboration, supervision, and publication. This taxonomy matters because the included sources varied widely in what they measured. Some examined individual competence, others institutional support, and still others the policy environment. By keeping the categories distinct, the review shows that a failure at one level cannot be fixed at another. Training an educator in research methods accomplishes little if her institution provides no protected time, no mentorship, and no recognition for scholarly work.

The barriers the review identifies are strikingly consistent across geographies. Educators in Rwanda, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and the Asia-Pacific region reported limited preparation in research methods, scientific writing, and publication processes, even when they expressed strong interest in developing these skills. Institutional conditions compounded the problem: high teaching and clinical workloads, minimal protected time for scholarship, under-resourced learning environments, weak research infrastructure, and few incentives or rewards for publication. In some settings, restricted institutional autonomy and fragmented oversight further limited opportunities to embed research within faculty roles. The review is explicit that these constraints shift attention away from deficit-based accounts of individual educators and toward the organizational environments in which they work. The problem is not that midwifery lecturers lack ambition; it is that their institutions rarely create realistic conditions under which scholarship can occur.

Against this backdrop, mentorship emerges as the single most consistent enabler in the literature. Studies of faculty development partnerships and longitudinal mentorship programs, including work from Malawi and Rwanda, suggest that educators build confidence and sustain scholarly activity when they receive structured guidance over time rather than one-off technical instruction. Mentorship, the review argues, functions not merely as a mechanism for skill transfer but as a relational pathway through which academic expectations, confidence, and professional identity are reinforced. Critically, however, the evidence indicates that mentorship works best when it is embedded within institutional systems rather than dependent on short-term external projects. Where mentorship was linked to local leadership, continuity, and ownership, the reported gains appeared more durable; where it arrived as a donor-funded workshop, the benefits tended to evaporate when the funding did.

The review also situates midwifery education within a wider structural landscape that generic research-capacity frameworks often ignore. Contextual sources highlighted the influence of gendered workplace hierarchies, the comparatively low professional status of midwifery, and the frequent embedding of midwifery within nursing structures, all of which can reduce the visibility and authority of midwives as academic contributors. Education pathways themselves are extraordinarily heterogeneous: across LMICs, entry-level midwifery programs range from certificates and diplomas to bachelor’s degrees, delivered in universities, colleges, and hospital-based training institutions. Global standards envisage that faculty hold qualifications above the level at which they teach, increasingly at master’s or doctoral level, yet many educators in LMIC settings have never had the opportunity to undertake postgraduate or research training. Because the capacity to teach, supervise, and conduct research depends heavily on an educator’s own prior exposure to higher-degree research, this variation in preparation directly shapes what kind of research culture an institution can realistically build.

Two global policy frameworks provide the normative backdrop against which these institutional realities appear especially stark. The International Confederation of Midwifery’s Global Standards for Midwifery Education and the World Health Organization’s Framework for Strengthening Quality Midwifery Education both position research, innovation, and evidence use as core components of educational quality. The review treats these documents as policy context rather than empirical evidence, but their significance is clear: the expectation that midwifery education be research-informed is now written into global standards, even as the empirical literature shows that implementation remains uneven and frequently unsupported. This gap between normative ambition and institutional capacity is perhaps the review’s most important finding, because it suggests that policy endorsement alone, without resourcing and structural change, will have limited effect on everyday academic practice.

The authors are careful about the limits of their synthesis, and their transparency strengthens rather than weakens the conclusions. The evidence base is small and heterogeneous; not all included sources directly examined research culture within midwifery education institutions; the search was restricted to English-language publications, likely reducing representation from Latin America, the Pacific, and francophone Africa; no formal critical appraisal was undertaken, consistent with scoping review methodology; and the team did not conduct a formal stakeholder consultation stage, relying instead on the embedded professional experience of its members across LMIC midwifery and health workforce contexts. The findings should therefore be read as mapping recurring patterns and plausible enabling conditions rather than establishing definitive causal claims about what strengthens research culture in every setting.

Even with those caveats, the practical implications are pointed. The review argues that sustainable progress is most likely where educator development, mentorship, leadership, and institutional support are aligned within enabling policy environments, and that research culture should be approached as a long-term institutional and system-level process rather than a stand-alone training activity. Concrete priorities include integrating research mentoring into faculty development systems, creating protected time and formal recognition for scholarly activity, and aligning accreditation and quality assurance mechanisms with expectations for evidence use. Because contexts vary so substantially, implementation must be locally adapted rather than assumed to be universally transferable. The authors also call for longitudinal, mixed-methods, and comparative studies examining how institutional investments such as protected time, mentorship systems, and regulatory reform influence research participation over time, with greater attention to under-represented regions. What emerges from this synthesis is a deceptively simple reframing: the question is not how to motivate midwifery educators to do research, but how to build institutions in which doing research becomes possible.

Subject of Research: Barriers and enablers of research culture in midwifery education in low- and middle-income countries

Article Title: A scoping review of barriers and enablers shaping research culture in midwifery education in low- and middle-income countries

Article References: Adnani, Q. E. S., Argaheni, N. B., Rahmatina, A. N., Melani, M., Susanti, A. I., Adepoju, V. A., Osborne, A., & McKenna, L. (2026). A scoping review of barriers and enablers shaping research culture in midwifery education in low- and middle-income countries. Discover Education, 5(1), Article 1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-02081-w

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44217-026-02081-w

Keywords: midwifery education, research culture, low- and middle-income countries, scoping review, mentorship, faculty development, research capacity, institutional support, maternal health, WHO, International Confederation of Midwives, evidence-based practice

The study, published in BMC Medical Education by researchers at Islamic Azad University in Mashhad and the Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research in Khorasan Razavi, focused on a topic that is both clinically important and pedagogically challenging. Benign breast diseases encompass a wide spectrum of conditions, from fibroadenomas and cysts to mastitis and fibrocystic changes, and midwives are often the first health professionals women consult when they notice a breast complaint. Distinguishing between harmless variations and findings that warrant urgent referral requires not just memorized facts but the ability to apply those facts to ambiguous, real-world presentations, exactly the skill that case-based learning is designed to cultivate.

To test whether that theoretical advantage translates into measurable learning gains, the research team recruited 54 fifth-semester undergraduate midwifery students and divided them into two groups of 27 for a single semester. One group received traditional lecture-based instruction, in which content is delivered in a structured, teacher-centered format. The other group engaged with case-based learning, working through anonymized reports of real clinical cases in facilitated discussion sessions. Rather than hearing about conditions in the abstract, these students encountered patients on paper: their symptoms, histories, examination findings and management pathways, and were asked to reason through each scenario collaboratively.

The researchers assessed knowledge with a 20-item multiple-choice examination administered identically before and after the intervention. Crucially, the questions were stratified by difficulty level into easy, medium and hard categories, allowing the team to see not just whether one teaching method produced higher scores overall, but where in the cognitive hierarchy those differences emerged. Satisfaction with the learning experience was measured separately using a seven-item Likert-scale questionnaire, capturing how students perceived the quality and usefulness of their instruction.

Because students in any real classroom start with different baseline knowledge, a simple comparison of post-test scores can be misleading. The team therefore used analysis of covariance, or ANCOVA, to statistically adjust for pre-intervention performance, and strengthened the robustness of their analysis with bootstrapping, a resampling technique that recalculated estimates 5,000 times to guard against the assumptions of traditional parametric statistics. Group comparisons of demographic characteristics were handled with chi-square tests, and all analyses were performed in SPSS version 24. This combination of design and analysis gives the findings more credibility than a naive before-and-after comparison would.

The results were striking. After adjusting for baseline scores, the case-based learning group achieved significantly higher total examination scores than the lecture group, with a 95 percent confidence interval for the intervention effect ranging from 1.38 to 5.81 points and a p-value of 0.001. When the researchers broke the results down by difficulty, the pattern became even more informative. Scores on medium-difficulty questions were significantly higher in the case-based group, with a confidence interval of 0.42 to 2.04, and the same held true for the hardest questions, where the interval spanned 0.12 to 2.36. In other words, the advantage of working through real cases was concentrated precisely where lectures tend to fall short: in the application, analysis and synthesis of knowledge rather than its simple recall.

That finding aligns with a well-established theoretical framework in cognitive psychology. Learning researchers have long distinguished between lower-order cognitive processes, such as remembering and understanding, and higher-order processes, such as applying and evaluating, in taxonomies like the widely used Bloom’s classification. Lectures can efficiently transmit information for storage and retrieval, but they offer few opportunities for learners to practice retrieving that information in the messy, context-dependent form in which clinical problems actually arrive. Case-based learning, by contrast, forces students to confront an unfamiliar presentation, generate hypotheses, weigh competing explanations and justify decisions, exercises that mirror the reasoning demanded at the bedside.

Interestingly, the study found no significant difference in student satisfaction between the two groups, with both reporting high levels of approval. This is a notable result because debates over teaching reform often assume that students will resist methods that demand more active engagement, or that only the novel approach will feel rewarding. Here, students taught by conventional lectures were just as satisfied as those working through cases, which suggests that the case-based method delivered its cognitive benefits without any cost to the student experience. For curriculum designers, that removes a common practical objection: adopting case-based learning in this context would not require trading student approval for better outcomes.

The study’s limitations are worth keeping in view. With 54 participants at a single university and a quasi-experimental design, in which students were assigned to groups without full randomization, the findings are suggestive rather than definitive. The authors themselves call for larger multicenter studies with long-term follow-up to confirm the results and to determine whether the knowledge gains from case-based learning persist over time, a critical question since retention, not just immediate test performance, is what ultimately matters in clinical practice. The single-institution setting in Mashhad also raises the usual question of generalizability to other educational systems and cultural contexts.

Even so, the study speaks to a question that extends far beyond midwifery. Health professions education worldwide is grappling with how to prepare students for clinical environments where problems rarely present as neatly as textbook chapters, and where the ability to reason through uncertainty can determine whether a patient with a breast lump is reassured appropriately or referred in time. This trial offers concrete, statistically grounded evidence that embedding anonymized real cases into teaching, even within a single course on a specific clinical topic, can measurably sharpen students’ command of difficult material. As the authors conclude, integrating case-based learning into midwifery curricula is a recommendation worth taking seriously, and the burden of proof is increasingly shifting to the defenders of the lecture hall.

Subject of Research: Comparing case-based learning with lecture-based teaching for knowledge acquisition in midwifery education on benign breast diseases

Article Title: Effectiveness of real case-based learning versus traditional lecture-based teaching on knowledge acquisition and satisfaction in benign breast diseases among undergraduate midwifery students: a quasi-experimental study

Article References: Dashti, S., Manouchehri, E., Motahari Moghadam, F., Afkhami Teimouri, G., & Jafarzadeh Esfahani, R. (2026). Effectiveness of real case-based learning versus traditional lecture-based teaching on knowledge acquisition and satisfaction in benign breast diseases among undergraduate midwifery students: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10523-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10523-0

Keywords: case-based learning, lecture-based teaching, midwifery education, benign breast diseases, medical education, knowledge acquisition, active learning, quasi-experimental study, student satisfaction, ANCOVA, clinical reasoning, undergraduate students

The research, led by Antita Kanjanakaew and colleagues at Mahidol University’s Faculty of Nursing together with nurse educators at Siriraj Hospital, emerged from a pressing global problem. Health systems worldwide face a shortage of qualified nurse-midwifery educators, the specialized faculty members who traditionally supervise students during clinical placements. When there are not enough educators to go around, students can find themselves watching from the sidelines rather than learning by doing. The buddy model was developed as a collaborative response, pairing students with experienced bedside nurse-midwives who act as day-to-day guides within authentic clinical settings, allowing experiential learning to continue even when formal educator supervision is stretched thin.

To understand whether the model works, the researchers turned to the people at its center. Twenty-six nurse-midwifery students participated in online focus group discussions, while fifteen nurse-midwives took part in in-depth individual interviews. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling, a technique that deliberately selects individuals with direct experience of the phenomenon under study. The team then applied qualitative content analysis, a systematic method for identifying patterns and themes within textual data, to distill hundreds of pages of conversation into a coherent account of what the buddy model delivers, and what it demands.

Four major themes emerged from the students’ side of the relationship. The first was apprehension toward interacting with unfamiliar nurses, a reminder that stepping onto a busy maternity ward as a student is an inherently vulnerable act. Students described initial anxiety about approaching nurses they did not know, worrying about being judged or turned away. Yet this apprehension typically gave way to the second theme: hands-on learning. Once relationships formed, students reported that working alongside buddy nurses enhanced their confidence, accelerated their professional identity formation, and helped them integrate classroom theory with the messy, unpredictable realities of patient care. There is a qualitative difference, the students suggested, between reading about labor management and standing beside a woman in labor with a trusted mentor at your shoulder.

The third and fourth themes revealed the model’s internal complexity. Students described a dichotomy between two types of buddies, and correspondingly different challenges of learning from each. Some buddy nurses were engaged, generous teachers who actively created learning opportunities; others were passive, offering little direction and leaving students to fend for themselves. Busy clinical environments compounded the problem, reducing learning engagement when workloads overwhelmed even the most willing mentors. In other words, the buddy model is not a self-executing mechanism. Its educational value depends heavily on the disposition, availability, and teaching capacity of the individual nurse to whom a student is assigned.

The nurse-midwives’ perspective, captured in the individual interviews, added a second, equally textured layer. Four themes again emerged. The nurse-midwives saw the buddy nurse role as multifaceted, encompassing mentor, emotional supporter, and professional role model simultaneously. They described holding the line between teaching and care, a delicate balancing act in which patient safety must always take priority even as students need room to practice. They also spoke of growth, from self to system, suggesting that serving as buddies prompted reflection not only on their own practice but on the broader structures of the clinical environment. Finally, they identified barriers to effective teaching, including heavy workloads, the constant demands of patient safety, and limited opportunities to carve out genuine learning moments within packed shifts.

When the researchers integrated both sets of perspectives, a striking picture emerged. The buddy model, they concluded, functions as a reciprocal relational learning process rather than a simple one-way transfer of knowledge. The relationship begins with approach and engagement, as students overcome initial apprehension and nurses open their practice to observation and participation. It progresses through support and professional role modeling, as buddies demonstrate not just technical skills but the emotional and ethical dimensions of midwifery. And it culminates in shared learning and professional outcomes, with students gaining competence and confidence while nurse-midwives themselves report renewed professional growth. Learning, in this framing, is not delivered but co-constructed.

That reciprocity may explain why the model appears to support psychological safety, a concept that has attracted growing attention in health professions education. Students who feel emotionally secure are more likely to ask questions, admit uncertainty, and attempt challenging procedures, all of which are essential to developing clinical judgment. The buddy relationship, built on repeated daily contact with a consistent mentor, seems to create precisely the conditions under which such vulnerability becomes productive. The study’s authors suggest this supportive relational quality is central to the model’s perceived benefits for both experiential learning and professional development.

Yet the findings come with candid caveats. The study’s participants perceived the buddy model as valuable, but its successful implementation depended on adequate engagement of buddy nurses, manageable workloads, and sufficient clinical learning opportunities. Where any of these conditions failed, the model’s benefits eroded quickly. Passive buddies and overwhelmed wards turned a potentially rich learning relationship into a hollow formality. The authors are careful to note that their findings offer preliminary, context-specific support, drawn from a single hospital and a particular academic-practice partnership, rather than a universal prescription. Generalizing to other institutions will require further research in different settings and health systems.

Even so, the implications are significant at a moment when midwifery education faces mounting pressure. Shortages of clinical educators are not unique to Thailand; they are a structural feature of nursing and midwifery training in many countries, and they threaten the pipeline of skilled birth attendants precisely when maternal health services need reinforcement. The buddy model offers a pragmatic pathway: it mobilizes the clinical workforce already in place, transforms routine care into a teaching platform, and does so without requiring large new investments in faculty. The Bangkok study suggests the approach can work, but only if institutions treat buddy nurses as educators in their own right, protecting their time, recognizing their teaching role, and selecting for the engaged, supportive disposition that students so clearly valued. The alternative, the study quietly warns, is a buddy system in name only, in which students stand beside nurses too busy to teach and learn far less than they might.

Subject of Research: Experiences of nurse-midwifery students and nurse-midwives with the buddy model of clinical education in Thailand

Article Title: Experiences of the buddy model in midwifery clinical practice: a qualitative exploration of students and nurse-midwives

Article References: Kanjanakaew, A., Ruchob, R., Sirisomboon, R., Leetheeragul, J., Buranasak, J., Khadking, N., Hungsawanus, P., & Nuampa, S. (2026). Experiences of the buddy model in midwifery clinical practice: a qualitative exploration of students and nurse-midwives. BMC Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-026-05378-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12912-026-05378-1

Keywords: buddy model, midwifery education, clinical learning, nurse-midwifery students, nurse-midwives, qualitative study, experiential learning, clinical teaching, professional identity, psychological safety, Thailand, nursing education