Menu
Back to Journals » Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare » Volume 16
A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Articles on Midwifery Based on the Web of Science
Authors Li T, Zeng Y, Fan X, Yang J, Yang C, Xiong Q, Liu P
Received 18 November 2022
Accepted for publication 17 February 2023
Published 11 March 2023 Volume 2023:16 Pages 677—692
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S398218
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser
Tingting Li,1,* Yilan Zeng,2,* Xianrong Fan,3,* Jing Yang,4 Chengying Yang,4 Qingyun Xiong,5 Ping Liu2
1Department of Science and Education, Changsha Hospital Affiliated to Xiangya Medical College, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Changsha Hospital Affiliated to Xiangya Medical College, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Hospital Office, The Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Yongchuan, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Changsha Hospital Affiliated to Xiangya Medical College, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, People’s Republic of China; 5Department of Ultrasonography, Changsha Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Changsha, Hunan Province, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Correspondence: Ping Liu, Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Changsha Hospital Affiliated to Xiangya Medical College, Central South University, 311 Yingpan Road, Kaifu District, Changsha, Hunan Province, 410005, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 15973136512, Email [email protected] Qingyun Xiong, Department of Ultrasonography, Changsha Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 22, Xingsha Avenue, Changsha County, Changsha City, Hunan Province, 410100, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 731-85259000, Email [email protected]
Objective: This study aimed to bibliometrically analyse the main features of the 100 top-cited articles on the midwifery index on the Web of Science.
Methods: Academic articles on midwifery’ research published from 1985 to 2020 were included. VOSviewer 1.6.15, SPSS 22.0 software and a homemade applet were used to identify, analyse and visualise the citation ranking, publication year, journal, country and organisation of origin, authorship, journal impact factor and keywords along with the total link strength of countries, organisations and keywords.
Results: Among the 100 top-cited articles, the highest number of citations of the retrieved articles was 484. The median number of citations per year was 5.16 (interquartile range: 3.74– 8.38). Almost two-thirds of the included articles (n = 61) centred on nursing and obstetrics/gynaecology. The top-cited articles were published in 38 different journals, the highest number of which was published by Midwifery (15%). Australia was the most productive country (24%). According to the total link strength, the sequence ran from the United States (28) to England (28) to Australia (19). The University of Technology Sydney and La Trobe University in Australia topped the list with four papers each. Hunter B was the most productive author (n = 4), and the average citations were positively related to the number of authors (r = 0.336, p < 0.05).
Conclusion: This study identified the most influential articles on midwifery and documented the core journals and the most productive countries, organisations and authors along with future research hotspots for this field; the findings may be beneficial to researchers in their publication and scientific cooperation endeavours.
Keywords: bibliometric analysis, citation, midwifery, total link strength
Introduction
The health status of women and children is an important indicator commonly used worldwide to measure the level of social development and the comprehensive national strength of the country, and midwives play a pivotal role in ensuring the health and safety of pregnant women and newborns.1 According to the International Confederation of midwifery, the World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, the midwife is recognized as a responsible and accountable professional who works in partnership with women to give the necessary support, care, and advice during pregnancy, labor and the postpartum period, to conduct births on the midwife’s own responsibility and to provide care for the newborn and the infants.2
Midwifery play a crucial role in reducing maternal and neonatal mortality.3 However, there is a dearth of midwifery both globally and within China. With the implementation of China’s comprehensive two-child policy in 2016 and three-child policy in 2021, a new round of fertility peaks has emerged in recent years, and the proportion of older pregnant women has increased significantly; maternal and child health are thus facing severe challenges.4 According to the National Bureau of Statistics 2020 China Statistical Yearbook5 between 2016 and 2019, 17.34 million babies were born, suggesting that a large number of midwifery are urgently needed in the workforce.
Addressing this concern, the National Health Commission of China issued its “Notice on Issuance of Guidance for the Reform and Development of Nursing Services (National Health and Medical Development [2018] No. 20)”, identifying midwifery as ‘scarce talents’. The notice further expanded the scale of professional recruitment for nursing and called for improving the proportion of midwife recruitment and vigorously developing the institutional training of midwifery.6 In 2015, the China Maternal and Child Health Association completed the evaluation and licensing of the first nine standardised midwifery training bases. Furthermore, it organised standardised midwifery training courses in August 2016, September 2017, September 2018, September 2019 and March 2020 to train nearly 2000 midwife professionals, promoting on-The-job training. Similarly, many counties started graduate and specialised nursing–midwifery education programmes (Toosi, Judith, Hammond, Cummins, Lakhani). However, research output remains an important indicator of both the progress in the midwifery profession and the quality of healthcare services in any country.7–13 Although midwifery research in China is continuously developing, most of the research is still limited to the stage of localization and exploration of related influencing factors, and it is necessary to further expand and deepen the focus of research, and there is still a certain gap between our research and some developed countries, and it is necessary to continue to strive to increase the pace of midwifery research in our country.14 At present, most scholars’ studies have evaluated the influencing factors of waiting quality, treatment options for different stages of labor, and the effects of interventions through experimental studies or investigative studies.14
Bibliometric analysis was first published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1987. It has been widely used in macroscopic evaluation of domestic and foreign research trends in medical treatment, science and technology, but the application of midwifery related research is still relatively small. This method is a unique tool to analyze the characteristics and importance of published articles. It is based on the number of citations of an article, and usually, it is used to evaluate an article’s academic impact.15–17 In 2006, Seaton HJ mapped the literature on the nursing–midwifery profession using research objects including journal papers, monographs, government documents and miscellaneous papers. In recent years, researchers have attempted to undertake bibliometric studies on nursing and midwifery in Latin America, France, the Caribbean and Arab countries.18–21 However, a bibliometric analysis of the seminal scientific output of midwifery worldwide has not been conducted. Thus, we conducted a bibliometric study to evaluate the 100 top-cited articles on midwifery using a visualised analysis of the selected articles, including the citation ranking, publication year, journal, country and organisation of origin, authorship, journal impact factor (IF) and keywords as well as the total link strength of countries, organisations and keywords, and the final purpose was to explore the research trends of midwifery worldwide, and to explore the research status, research hotspots, and research frontiers of midwifery by analyzing the relevant domestic and foreign literatures through bibliometric methods, guiding research methods for midwifery scholars at home and abroad.
Methods
Basic Information of the Top-Cited Articles
Articles from the Science Citation Index Expanded™ database of the Web of Science (WOS) were searched on 31 December 2020 using the following retrieval strategy (Appendix A): Mesh = “nurse midwifery” OR TS = “midwifery” OR TS = “midwife” AND Language = English. The publishing year was set from 1985 to 2020. We included journal articles, original articles and synonymous publications with the main subject of midwifery. The exclusion criteria included a review, systematic review, meta-analysis, editorial, meeting abstract or letter or an article unrelated to midwifery. The selected articles were assessed and screened by two independent reviewers (T. Li and X. Fan). A third researcher (X. Song) was consulted to address any discrepancies. For articles with incomplete information, the required material was obtained through other retrieval platforms, such as PubMed and Google Scholar.
Citation Analysis Indices
The citation analysis indices of each eligible article included the article title, publication year, journal, journal’s IF, author, authors’ organisation and country, keywords, total citations, average citations per year, total link strength, cooperative countries and organisations. The confirmed keywords were combined before an analysis by a homemade applet (eg “nurse midwife”, “nurse–midwifery” and “midwifery” were combined as “midwifery”). The main design of this study referred to previous published bibliometric studies.22–26
Statistical Analyses
The statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 and Microsoft Excel 2019 software, which were used for data analysis and collation, respectively. Means with standard deviations were used to express continuous variables, while medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were used to express discrete variables. A t-test (for parametric continuous variables) was used for the comparative analysis. Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient (for continuous variables) and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (for categorical variables) were used for the correlation analysis. Two-tailed statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The collaborative networks of the countries and organisations were visualised using VOSviewer 1.6.15. Additionally, we used a homemade applet for synonymous keyword merging.
Results
Basic Characteristics
The included top-cited articles are listed in Table S1 in descending order according to the total citations.27–125 The most frequently cited article was cited 484 times, and the median number of citations was 75.00 (IQR: 62.00–95.75). Considering the total citations related to the publication year, we added a column of data on the average citations adjusted by the publication year. Based on average citations, 9 of the top 10 articles were published in the last decade. However, the number changed to 5 according to the number of total citations. The maximum average citation per year was 64.71, and the median average citation per year was 5.16 (IQR: 3.74–8.38).
These articles were published between 1988 and 2018, with a mean of 5 articles published per year. The highest number of publications was 9, which occurred in 2004 and 2012, followed by 8 in 2005, 2011 and 2014, respectively, collectively contributing 42 of the 100 top-cited articles. According to the WOS categories, nearly half (45%) of the selected articles focused on nursing, followed by obstetrics and gynaecology (16%), general and internal medicine (16%) and public environmental and occupational health (14%). Four articles, which were published in 1988, 2015, 2016 and 2018, were categorised as multidisciplinary sciences (Figure 1).
 |
Figure 1 The publication year distribution of the 100 top-cited articles. |
Journal Distribution Analysis
The journals with two or more top-cited articles are listed in Table 1 in descending order by the number of total citations. The 100 top-cited articles were published in 38 different journals; Midwifery published the greatest number of these articles (15%), followed by the Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health (9%) and Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care (7%). Thirteen journals had an IF higher than 5, and these journals contributed nearly one-third of the top-cited articles (n = 28). The IF of The New England Journal of Medicine was the highest (IF = 74.699), followed by The Lancet (IF = 60.392) and The BMJ (IF = 30.223), which published 1, 6 and 6 of the included 100 articles, respectively. Half of the journals published only 1 top-cited article. The maximum and median IFs of these journals were 74.699 and 2.906, respectively (IQR: 2.032–5.676). The top-cited articles from journals with an IF higher than 5 were cited more frequently (median [IQR]: 6.464 [5.528–18.984] average citations vs 2.321 [1.760–2.906] average citations; t = 2.334, p<0.05). However, the journal IFs and average citations per year exhibited no linear correlation (r = 0.092, p > 0.05).
 |
Table 1 Distribution of Journals with 2 or More Top 100 Cited Articles |
Country and Organisation Analysis
It is stipulated that the first author of an article determines the ownership of the intellectual property rights of that publication. The 100 top-cited articles were distributed in 18 countries. Australia published nearly a quarter of these articles (n = 24), followed by the USA (n = 15), England (n = 15) and Sweden (n = 11) (Figure 2).
 |
Figure 2 The country distribution of the 100 top-cited articles. |
Scientific research cooperation is an important driving force for the development of science and technology. It can not only improve the overall strength of scientific research teams but also effectively promote the exchange of knowledge among institutions and countries as well as share scientific research achievements. Countries that co-authored three or more articles are shown in Figure 3. The ranking of countries with active international cooperation is consistent with that of the countries with publications of the top-cited articles.
 |
Figure 3 The network map of countries which coauthored three or more articles. |
The University of Technology Sydney and La Trobe University in Australia top the article publication ranking, each contributing four papers, followed by Western Sydney University in Australia, the University of California–San Francisco in the USA and the University of British Columbia in Canada, each contributing three articles (Figure 4). Figure 5 shows the organisations that co-authored three or more articles. The University of Technology Sydney in Australia and King’s College London in England were the top two most influential organisations according to co-authored publications.
 |
Figure 4 The organizations of two or more articles in the 100 top-cited articles. |
 |
Figure 5 The network map of organizations which coauthored three or more articles. |
Author Analysis
Ninety unique first authors contributed to the 100 top-cited articles. B Hunter published the most articles (n = 4), followed by Homer (n = 3). Table 2 summarises the co-authors who contributed three or more of the top 100 articles. The median number of all the authors was 4 (IQR: 2–6). The more times an article was cited, the more authors it had, on average (r = 0.336, p < 0.05).
 |
Table 2 The Authors of Three or More Articles as First Author or Coauthor |
Keyword Analysis
As the author keywords were not available for some selected articles, we used all keywords (including both author keywords and keywords plus) for the keyword analysis. A total of 310 keywords with different meanings were identified from the top-cited articles. The keywords were counted using VOSviewer, and clustering and time superposition maps were compiled. A keyword co-occurrence map was plotted to visualise the research trends and hotspots in a specific field. The related research directions were divided into three categories (Figure 6): ① The green area represents the role of midwifery in childbirth, midwifery care during pregnancy and its impact on reducing the rate of perinatal mortality. Key words were “pregnancy, attitudes, perinatal-mortality, childbirth, midwives”. ② The top three keywords in the red area were “nursing satisfaction”, “work experience”, “health” and “job burnout of midwifery”. ③ The blue area represents the effect of midwifery’ care in different stages of women’s labour and delivery and related studies regarding Caesarean sections. Key words were “caesarean-section, labor”. These three research directions are not unrelated but complementary, and they jointly outline the research and development process for midwifery. The time superposition map indicates that most of the early studies focused on the application of midwifery’ nursing in pregnancy and delivery. Over time, the satisfaction of midwifery with nursing and the job burnout of midwifery gradually attracted attention. Figure 7 shows the keywords that co-authored five or more articles.
 |
Figure 6 The network map of keywords which co-occurred five or more articles. |
 |
Figure 7 The time superposition map of keywords which co-occurred five or more articles. |
Total Link Strength Analysis
The total link strength is the sum of the link strengths of one node over all the other nodes, and it functions as a standard to measure attributes.23 Therefore, keywords, organisations and countries with high total link strengths were considered leading keywords in midwifery’ research, and they formed the network hub of the co-occurrence map. The top 10 total link strengths of the keywords, organisations and countries are shown in Table 3, with three as the minimum number of publications. “midwifery” and “childbirth” were the top two keywords with the strongest total link strength (147 and 138, respectively) and were also the top two keywords with the highest co-occurrences (42 and 39, respectively). This finding was consistent with the result displayed in the keyword co-occurrence map (Figure 6). In terms of organisations, the Comprehensive Institute of Social Cooperation in Spain had the strongest link strength (11) and the highest number of total citations (914), followed by the University of Southampton in England (link strength: 10, total citations: 776). Among the 10 organisations, the Karolinska Institute in Sweden co-authored the most publications (8). In terms of countries, the USA, England and Australia were the top three countries with the strongest total link strength (28, 28 and 19, respectively), the most co-authored documents (23, 25 and 28, respectively) and total citations (2666, 2978 and 2520, respectively).
 |
Table 3 The Top 10 Total Link Strengths of Keywords, Organizations, and Countries |
Discussion
A citation analysis can provide a great deal of information about journals, organisations, authors, etc., and it can summarize high-impact papers and influential journals.126–129 It provides a historical perspective on the scientific process as well as the investigative trend in the field of midwifery A bibliometric analysis applies quantitative and statistical analyses to describe patterns observed in specific publications and can help to identify previous, current and future major advances in biomedical research.130–132 This bibliometric study described the 100 top-cited articles on the theme of midwifery and analysed the distribution of these articles in terms of citation ranking, publication year, journal, country, organisation, authorship, keywords and the total link strength of countries, organisations and keywords. Furthermore, visualised network maps were used to explore keyword co-occurrence and co-authorship by country and organisation.
Basic Characteristics
The 100 included articles published between 1988 and 2018 were cited 55 to 484 times. The most-cited article, by Garfield, was published 33 years ago (in 1988), which explains the time bias of total citations. More than half of these articles (n = 68) were published a decade ago, and none published in the past 5 years appeared in the top 30. Hence, these articles were rearranged based on average citations per year. Consequently, a visualised map of midwifery across the USA published in average citations ranked 3rd, while in terms of total citations, it ranked only 46th.71 Similarly, two articles published in 2016 and 2017 ranked much higher (from 34th to 8th and from 56th to 7th, respectively) based on average citations per year.59,81 Moreover, according to the average citations per year compared with total citations, more articles were published in the past decade.
Typically, scientific articles begin to be substantially cited 1–2 years after publication, reach a maximum after 3 to 5 years and then decrease to a lower level.133 Consequently, with high average citations, articles published in recent years may reflect the emerging research trends in the field of midwifery, contributing more citations over time, as with the three articles above.
Journal Distribution
The publishing theme of 15% of the 100 top-cited articles was midwifery. Journals with high IFs (the lower quartile of the IFs was 5.15) published nearly one-third of the 100 articles. Thirteen of the top-cited articles were published in the top three journals with an IF higher than 30 (JCR division Q1). However, 16 different journals with an IF lower than 5 published one-fifth of the selected articles. Furthermore, there was no linear correlation between journal IF and average citations per year. This finding demonstrates that journal IF does not represent the level of an article but the evaluation of the overall academic level of the journal.134,135 Therefore, when evaluating scientific research achievements, we should comprehensively consider both journals’ IFs and article citations.
Country and Organisation
Australia contributed nearly a quarter of the top-cited articles, and it occupied the centre of the country co-authorship visualisation map, reflecting its close collaboration with other countries, such as England, the USA and Sweden. This result shows the principal academic status of Australia in midwifery. Notably, the USA and England were tied in terms of publishing the second-highest number of the top 100 articles and were the top two countries with the strongest total link strength (both 28), which was also indicated by their short distances from other nodes in the country co-authorship visualisation map. This finding confirms the tremendous impact of both countries on midwifery’ research. In contrast, as the co-authorship map shows, although Spain and Switzerland contributed few articles, they actively collaborated with other countries. The statistical results showed that the total article citations were relevant to both publications and total link strength. However, Asian countries are not represented on the co-authorship map. Thus, improve the midwifery research level, they should deepen their cooperative relationship with Australia, the USA and European countries.
The three organizations with the 11 top-cited articles were from Australia, 8 of which were published by Three organizations published 11 top-cited articles, 8 of 11 were published by two organizations, they are the Nursing & Midwifery School and the Mothers & Children’s Health Study Centre, which may be attributed to the high academic degree-level education of midwifery in Australia.136 The top two influential organisations in the organisation co-authorship network map were the University of Technology Sydney in Australia and King’s College London in England. Notably, although few top-cited articles originated from the University of Central Lancashire, the University of Southampton and the University of Dundee in the UK as the first affiliation, they had strong collaborative links with other dominant organisations. Moreover, the top 10 total link strengths of organisations, most of which were from European countries, such as England, Spain and Sweden, were correlated with total citations. These results suggest that Australia and many European countries are at the frontier of midwifery’ research and cooperate well to yield high-quality articles.
Core Authors
B Hunter, who published four papers that have been cited 337 times, was the most productive and cited author. Homer CSE, Kennedy HP and Waldenstrom U were prolific authors in the midwifery field both as first authors and co-authors. Although Sandall J and Campbell J were not identified as the first authors of any of the selected articles, they were actively involved in academic cooperation networks and played an important academic role in this field. More than half of the 100 articles were finished by four or more authors (the median number of co-authors was four), and the average citations were positively linearly correlated with the number of co-authors, indicating a trend of enhanced cooperation among high-quality articles.
Study Hotpots
Considering the nursing nature of midwifery, articles related to “nursing” were identified prominently in the top-100 list (n = 45). As midwifery have developed, the competency and training modes of midwifery, which are categorised as “obstetrics & gynaecology”, have been well studied, and they accounted for 16 papers. Furthermore, studies on occupational adaptation, which plays a vital role in “public, environmental and occupational health”, accounted for 14% of the list. The above conclusions confirmed the keyword analysis results. According to the keyword co-occurrence and time superposition maps, in the early years, the midwifery’ research focused mainly on the application of midwifery nursing in clinics. Midwifery’ occupational health emerged as a new research hotspot.
Total Link Strength
The link strength between two nodes denotes the frequency of co-occurrence and can be used as a quantitative index to describe the relationship between two nodes.137 According to the total link strength of the top 10 keywords, the total link strength and co-occurrences had a linear correlation. In the co-authorship analysis, the link strength between organisations or countries represents the number of co-authored articles.138 The total link strength of the top 10 organisations was correlated with total citations but not with publication number. For countries, the total link strength was correlated with both total citations and the number of publications.
Citation Bias
Considering that articles’ citations generally rely on publication time, the time of issuance can significantly affect the number of times an article is cited.131,132,139 The included articles were published between 1988 and 2018, and the analysis demonstrated that most (86) of the top-cited papers on midwifery were published from 1996 to 2015. This finding is comparable with that of another bibliometric analysis,140 which demonstrated that generally, the final impact of an article usually cannot be precisely measured for at least 20 years after its publication. Additionally, classic papers may be cited less day by day since their research findings have become accepted truth and are embedded in daily clinical practice.141
Strengths and Limitations
A strength of our research is that we analysed the total link strength of keywords, organisations and countries, which can reflect the leading ones of the top-cited articles. Then, we listed the authors, journals, keywords, countries and organisations in detail. Finally, we performed statistical analyses to determine the underlying factors that may be related to citation counts.
Our research has some limitations. First is the inherent time bias referred to when relying on the number of citations of an article, which could preferentially favour older papers.142 Second, the language of the papers was restricted to English; thus, studies written in other languages may have been omitted. Third, only the WOS was searched for data collection purposes, and other databases, such as PubMed, were not analysed.
In summary, this bibliometric analysis of the 100 top-cited articles distinguishes the major advances and research trends in the field of midwifery that disseminate midwife-led clinical research, develop nurse and midwife researchers and highlight the direction of midwifery’ education and training.
Conclusion
Our study identified articles responsible for the most significant developments in research on midwifery. The core journals for midwifery are Midwifery (IF = 1.778), The Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health (IF = 1.742) and Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care (IF = 2.705). The most productive country is Australia, and the most productive organisations (The University of Technology Sydney and La Trobe University) and author (Hunter B from Wales) are based there. Midwifery’ occupational health, including their physical and mental health, could be future research hotspots.
Data Sharing Statement
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Funding
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province under Grant (number 2022JJ80102), the Hunan Health Commission under Grant (number 202212073729) and the Changsha Science and Technology Bureau under Grant (number kzd2001092).
Disclosure
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
References
1. He JJ, Luo BR. Analysis of current situation and development trend of midwifery specialty research in China based on knowledge map. Chin Nurs Res. 2018;32(02):202–207. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-6493.2018.02.011
2. Borrelli SE. What is a good midwife? Insights from the literature. Midwifery. 2014;30(1):3–10. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2013.06.019
3. Penny RA, Bradford NK, Langbecker D. Registered nurse and midwife experiences of using videoconferencing in practice: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(5–6):e739–e752. doi:10.1111/jocn.14175
4. Dou SS, Bai H, Gu XL, et al. Investigation and study on the present situation of midwifery and the application of suitable midwifery technology in Henan Province. Chin J Nurs. 2018;53(2):158–161. doi:10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2018.02.006
5. National Bureau of Statistics. China Statistical Yearbook 2020. Beijing: China Statistical Press; 2020. Available from. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2020/indexeh.htm.
6. National Health Commission. Notice on issuance of guidance for the reform and development of nursing services (National Health and Medical Development [2018] No.20); 2018. Available from: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s7659/201807/1a71c7bea4a04d5f82d1aea262ab465e.shtml.
7. Toosi M, Modarres M, Amini M, et al. A survey of midwifery graduates’ opinions about midwifery education in Iran: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):340. doi:10.1186/s12909-021-02764-y
8. Haber J, Dolce MC, Hartnett E, et al. Integrating Oral Health Curricula into Midwifery Graduate Programs: results of a US Survey. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2019;64(4):462–471. doi:10.1111/jmwh.12974
9. Hammond A, Gray J, Smith R, et al. Same…same but different: expectations of graduates from two midwifery education courses in Australia. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(15–16):2315–2324. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03774.x
10. Cummins AM, Denney-Wilson E, Homer CSE. The mentoring experiences of new graduate midwifery working in midwifery continuity of care models in Australia. Nurse Educ Pract. 2017;24:106–111. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2016.01.003
11. Lakhani A, Jan R, Baig M, et al. Experiences of the graduates of the first baccalaureate midwifery programme in Pakistan: a descriptive exploratory study. Midwifery. 2018;59:94–99. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2018.01.008
12. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 9th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Nurse Educ Pract. 2013;13(6):e29. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2013.04.001
13. Ellenbecker CH, Edward J. Conducting nursing research to advance and inform health policy. Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2016;17(4):208–217. doi:10.1177/1527154417700634
14. He JJ, Luo BR. Analysis of research situation in the field of international midwifery based on Web of Science. J Nurs Training. 2021;36(12):1062–1068. doi:10.16821/j.cnki.hsjx.2021.12.002
15. Qu Y, Zhang C, Hu Z, et al. The 100 most influential publications in asthma from 1960 to 2017: a bibliometric analysis. Respir Med. 2018;137:206–212. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2018.03.014
16. Cuocolo R, Ponsiglione A, Dell’Aversana S, et al. The cardiac conundrum: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of authorship in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging studies. Insights Imaging. 2020;11(1):42. doi:10.1186/s13244-020-00850-1
17. Huang L, Shi X, Zhang N, et al. Bibliometric analysis of trends and issues in traditional medicine for stroke research: 2004–2018. BMC Complement Ther. 2020;20(1):39. doi:10.1186/s12906-020-2832-x
18. Zavaleta-Lopez E, Villarreal-Zegarra D, Cjuno J, et al., Scientific production of midwifery in Latin American obstetrics and gynecology journals indexed in Scopus. Medwave. 2019;19(5):e7658. Spanish, English. doi:10.5867/medwave.2019.05.7658
19. Sweileh WM, Huijer HA, Al-Jabi SW, et al. Nursing and midwifery research activity in Arab countries from 1950 to 2017. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):340. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4178-y
20. Goyet S, Sauvegrain P, Schantz C, et al. State of midwifery research in France. Midwifery. 2018;64:101–109. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2018.06.021
21. Iribarren S, Stonbraker S, Larsen B, et al. Clinical nursing and midwifery research in Latin American and Caribbean countries: a scoping review. Int J Nurs Pract. 2018;24(2):e12623. doi:10.1111/ijn.12623
22. Seaton HJ. Mapping the literature of nurse-midwifery. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(2 Suppl):E80–6. doi:10.1111/ijn.12623
23. Park H, Lee IS, Lee H, et al. Bibliometric analysis of moxibustion research trends over the past 20 years. J Clin Med. 2020;9(5):1254. doi:10.3390/jcm9051254
24. Huang Z, Zhang H, Luo Y, et al. The 100 top-cited articles in diabetic kidney disease: a bibliometric analysis. Ren Fail. 2021;43(1):781–795. doi:10.1080/0886022X.2021.1919528
25. Djoutsop OM, Mbougo JV, Kanmounye US. Global head and neck surgery research during the COVID pandemic: a bibliometric analysis. Ann Med Surg. 2021;68:102555. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102555
26. Mazhari S. The 100 top-cited articles published in psychiatric journals. J PsychiatrPract. 2013;19(4):327–338. doi:10.1097/01.pra.0000432604.06835.da
27. Radosh PF. Midwifery: alternative care for pregnancy and childbirth. Curr Contents. 1988;21:3–12.
28. Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet. 2014;384(9948):1129–1145. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60789-3
29. ten Hoope-Bender P, de Bernis L, Campbell J, et al. Improvement of maternal and newborn health through midwifery. Lancet. 2014;384(9949):1226–1235. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60930-2
30. Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page LA, Klein MC, Liston RM, Lee SK. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ. 2009;181(6–7):377–383. doi:10.1503/cmaj.081869
31. Johnson KC, Daviss BA. Outcomes of planned home births with certified professional midwives: large prospective study in North America. BMJ. 2005;330(7505):1416. doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7505.1416
32. Tracy SK, Hartz DL, Tracy MB, et al. Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: m@NGO, a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9906):1723–1732. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61406-3
33. Foureur M, Besley K, Burton G, Yu N, Crisp J. Enhancing the resilience of nurses and midwives: pilot of a mindfulness-based program for increased health, sense of coherence and decreased depression, anxiety and stress. Contemp Nurse. 2013;45(1):114–125. doi:10.5172/conu.2013.45.1.114
34. McLachlan HL, Forster DA, Davey MA, et al. Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2012;119(12):1483–1492. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03446.x
35. Jordan B. Cosmopolitical obstetrics: some insights from the training of traditional midwives. Soc Sci Med. 1989;28(9):925–37;discussion 937–44. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(89)90317-1
36. Hunter B. Conflicting ideologies as a source of emotion work in midwifery. Midwifery. 2004;20(3):261–272. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2003.12.004
37. Hutton EK, Reitsma AH, Kaufman K. Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003–2006: a retrospective cohort study. Birth. 2009;36(3):180–189. doi:10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00322.x
38. Homer CS, Friberg IK, Dias MA, et al. The projected effect of scaling up midwifery. Lancet. 2014;384(9948):1146–1157. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60790-X
39. Turnbull D, Holmes A, Shields N, et al. Randomised, controlled trial of efficacy of midwife-managed care. Lancet. 1996;348(9022):213–218. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(95)11207-3
40. Crofts JF, Ellis D, Draycott TJ, Winter C, Hunt LP, Akande VA. Change in knowledge of midwives and obstetricians following obstetric emergency training: a randomised controlled trial of local hospital, simulation centre and teamwork training. BJOG. 2007;114(12):1534–1541. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01493.x
41. Janssen PA, Lee SK, Ryan EM, et al. Outcomes of planned home births versus planned hospital births after regulation of midwifery in British Columbia. CMAJ. 2002;166(3):315–323.
42. Wiegers TA, Keirse MJ, van der Zee J, Berghs GA. Outcome of planned home and planned hospital births in low risk pregnancies: prospective study in midwifery practices in The Netherlands. BMJ. 1996;313(7068):1309–1313. doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7068.1309
43. Small R, Lumley J, Donohue L, Potter A, Waldenström U. Randomised controlled trial of midwife led debriefing to reduce maternal depression after operative childbirth. BMJ. 2000;321(7268):1043–1047. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7268.1043
44. Van Lerberghe W, Matthews Z, Achadi E, et al. Country experience with strengthening of health systems and deployment of midwives in countries with high maternal mortality. Lancet. 2014;384(9949):1215–1225. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60919-3
45. Hundley VA, Cruickshank FM, Lang GD, et al. Midwife managed delivery unit: a randomised controlled comparison with consultant led care. BMJ. 1994;309(6966):1400–1404. doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6966.1400
46. Kennedy HP. A model of exemplary midwifery practice: results of a Delphi study. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2000;45(1):4–19. doi:10.1016/S1526-9523(99)00018-5
47. Lavender T, Walkinshaw SA. Can midwives reduce postpartum psychological morbidity? A randomized trial. Birth. 1998;25(4):215–219. doi:10.1046/j.1523-536X.1998.00215.x
48. Berg M, Lundgren I, Hermansson E, Wahlberg V. Women’s experience of the encounter with the midwife during childbirth. Midwifery. 1996;12(1):11–15. doi:10.1016/S0266-6138(96)90033-9
49. Albers LL, Sedler KD, Bedrick EJ, Teaf D, Peralta P. Midwifery care measures in the second stage of labor and reduction of genital tract trauma at birth: a randomized trial. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2005;50(5):365–372. doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2005.05.012
50. Darbyshire P. “Rage against the machine?”: nurses’ and midwives’ experiences of using Computerized Patient Information Systems for clinical information. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(1):17–25. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00823.x
51. Hajek P, West R, Lee A, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a midwife-delivered brief smoking cessation intervention in pregnancy. Addiction. 2001;96(3):485–494. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.96348511.x
52. MacDorman MF, Singh GK. Midwifery care, social and medical risk factors, and birth outcomes in the USA. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(5):310–317. doi:10.1136/jech.52.5.310
53. Cheyney M, Bovbjerg M, Everson C, Gordon W, Hannibal D, Vedam S. Outcomes of care for 16,924 planned home births in the United States: the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014;59(1):17–27. doi:10.1111/jmwh.12172
54. Allaire AD, Moos MK, Wells SR. Complementary and alternative medicine in pregnancy: a survey of North Carolina certified nurse-midwives. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(1):19–23. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00481-0
55. Toohill J, Fenwick J, Gamble J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a psycho-education intervention by midwives in reducing childbirth fear in pregnant women. Birth. 2014;41(4):384–394. doi:10.1111/birt.12136
56. Ryding EL, Persson A, Onell C, Kvist L. An evaluation of midwives’ counseling of pregnant women in fear of childbirth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(1):10–17. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.820102.x
57. Tripp N, Hainey K, Liu A, et al. An emerging model of maternity care: smartphone, midwife, doctor? Women Birth. 2014;27(1):64–67. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2013.11.001
58. McFarlin BL, Gibson MH, O’Rear J, Harman P. A national survey of herbal preparation use by nurse-midwives for labor stimulation. Review of the literature and recommendations for practice. J Nurse Midwifery. 1999;44(3):205–216. doi:10.1016/S0091-2182(99)00037-3
59. Filby A, McConville F, Portela A, Kumar S. What prevents quality midwifery care? A systematic mapping of barriers in low and middle income countries from the provider perspective. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0153391. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153391
60. Rowley MJ, Hensley MJ, Brinsmead MW, Wlodarczyk JH. Continuity of care by a midwife team versus routine care during pregnancy and birth: a randomised trial. Med J Aust. 1995;163(6):289–293. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1995.tb124592.x
61. Hunter B. Emotion work and boundary maintenance in hospital-based midwifery. Midwifery. 2005;21(3):253–266. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2004.12.007
62. Mollart L, Skinner VM, Newing C, Foureur M. Factors that may influence midwives work-related stress and burnout. Women Birth. 2013;26(1):26–32. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2011.08.002
63. Amelink-Verburg MP, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Hakkenberg RM, Veldhuijzen IM, Bennebroek Gravenhorst J, Buitendijk SE. Evaluation of 280,000 cases in Dutch midwifery practices: a descriptive study. BJOG. 2008;115(5):570–578. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01580.x
64. Lundgren I, Berg M. Central concepts in the midwife-woman relationship. Scand J Caring Sci. 2007;21(2):220–228. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00460.x
65. Norman IJ, Watson R, Murrells T, Calman L, Redfern S. The validity and reliability of methods to assess the competence to practise of pre-registration nursing and midwifery students. Int J Nurs Stud. 2002;39(2):133–145. doi:10.1016/S0020-7489(01)00028-1
66. Proctor S. What determines quality in maternity care? Comparing the perceptions of childbearing women and midwives. Birth. 1998;25(2):85–93. doi:10.1046/j.1523-536x.1998.00085.x
67. Ahlborg G, Axelsson G, Bodin L. Shift work, nitrous oxide exposure and subfertility among Swedish midwives. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25(4):783–790. doi:10.1093/ije/25.4.783
68. Bowler I. “They”re not the same as us’: midwives’ stereotypes of South Asian descent maternity patients. Sociol Health Illn. 1993;15(2):157–178. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.ep11346882
69. Weitz TA, Taylor D, Desai S, et al. Safety of aspiration abortion performed by nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants under a California legal waiver. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(3):454–461. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301159
70. Heins HC, Nance NW, McCarthy BJ, Efird CM. A randomized trial of nurse-midwifery prenatal care to reduce low birth weight. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75(3 Pt 1):341–345.
71. Vedam S, Stoll K, MacDorman M, et al. Mapping integration of midwives across the United States: impact on access, equity, and outcomes. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0192523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192523
72. Peplonska B, Bukowska A, Sobala W, Sirtori CR. Association of rotating night shift work with BMI and abdominal obesity among nurses and midwives. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0133761. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133761
73. Kirkham M. The culture of midwifery in the National Health Service in England. J Adv Nurs. 1999;30(3):732–739. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01139.x
74. Dykes F. A critical ethnographic study of encounters between midwives and breast-feeding women in postnatal wards in England. Midwifery. 2005;21(3):241–252. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2004.12.006
75. Biró MA, Waldenström U, Brown S, Pannifex JH. Satisfaction with team midwifery care for low- and high-risk women: a randomized controlled trial. Birth. 2003;30(1):1–10. doi:10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00211.x
76. Murphy PA, Fullerton J. Outcomes of intended home births in nurse-midwifery practice: a prospective descriptive study. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92(3):461–470. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00182-3
77. Sekscenski ES, Sansom S, Bazell C, Salmon ME, Mullan F. State practice environments and the supply of physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified nurse-midwives. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(19):1266–1271. doi:10.1056/NEJM199411103311905
78. Berg M, Asta Ólafsdóttir O, Lundgren I. A midwifery model of woman-centred childbirth care--in Swedish and Icelandic settings. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2012;3(2):79–87. doi:10.1016/j.srhc.2012.03.001
79. Furness PJ, McSeveny K, Arden MA, Garland C, Dearden AM, Soltani H. Maternal obesity support services: a qualitative study of the perspectives of women and midwives. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;8(11):69. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-11-69
80. Harvey S, Jarrell J, Brant R, Stainton C, Rach D. A randomized, controlled trial of nurse-midwifery care. Birth. 1996;23(3):128–135. doi:10.1111/j.1523-536X.1996.tb00473.x
81. Creedy DK, Sidebotham M, Gamble J, Pallant J, Fenwick J. Prevalence of burnout, depression, anxiety and stress in Australian midwives: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):13. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1212-5
82. Kennedy HP, Shannon MT, Chuahorm U, Kravetz MK. The landscape of caring for women: a narrative study of midwifery practice. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2004;49(1):14–23. doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2003.09.015
83. Schmied VA, Duff M, Dahlen HG, Mills AE, Kolt GS. ‘Not waving but drowning’: a study of the experiences and concerns of midwives and other health professionals caring for obese childbearing women. Midwifery. 2011;27(4):424–430. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2010.02.010
84. Beenstock J, Sniehotta FF, White M, Bell R, Milne EM, Araujo-Soares V. What helps and hinders midwives in engaging with pregnant women about stopping smoking? A cross-sectional survey of perceived implementation difficulties among midwives in the North East of England. Implement Sci. 2012;24(7):36. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-36
85. McDonald G, Jackson D, Wilkes L, Vickers MH. A work-based educational intervention to support the development of personal resilience in nurses and midwives. Nurse Educ Today. 2012;32(4):378–384. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2011.04.012
86. Homer CS, Davis GK, Cooke M, Barclay LM. Women’s experiences of continuity of midwifery care in a randomised controlled trial in Australia. Midwifery. 2002;18(2):102–112. doi:10.1054/midw.2002.0298
87. Butler J, Abrams B, Parker J, Roberts JM, Laros RK. Supportive nurse-midwife care is associated with a reduced incidence of cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168(5):1407–1413. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(11)90773-X
88. Leinweber J, Rowe HJ. The costs of ‘being with the woman’: secondary traumatic stress in midwifery. Midwifery. 2010;26(1):76–87. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2008.04.003
89. Homer CS, Passant L, Brodie PM, et al. The role of the midwife in Australia: views of women and midwives. Midwifery. 2009;25(6):673–681. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2007.11.003
90. Veeramah V. Utilization of research findings by graduate nurses and midwives. J Adv Nurs. 2004;47(2):183–191. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03077.x
91. Abrahams N, Jewkes R, Mvo Z. Health care-seeking practices of pregnant women and the role of the midwife in Cape Town, South Africa. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2001;46(4):240–247. doi:10.1016/S1526-9523(01)00138-6
92. Begley C, Devane D, Clarke M, et al. Comparison of midwife-led and consultant-led care of healthy women at low risk of childbirth complications in the Republic of Ireland: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;29(11):85. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-11-85
93. Harvey S, Rach D, Stainton MC, Jarrell J, Brant R. Evaluation of satisfaction with midwifery care. Midwifery. 2002;18(4):260–267. doi:10.1054/midw.2002.0317
94. Schluter PJ, Turner C, Huntington AD, Bain CJ, McClure RJ. Work/life balance and health: the Nurses and Midwives e-cohort Study. Int Nurs Rev. 2011;58(1):28–36. doi:10.1111/j.1466-7657.2010.00849.x
95. Warenius LU, Faxelid EA, Chishimba PN, Musandu JO, Ongany AA, Nissen EB. Nurse-midwives’ attitudes towards adolescent sexual and reproductive health needs in Kenya and Zambia. Reprod Health Matters. 2006;14(27):119–128. doi:10.1016/S0968-8080(06)27242-2
96. Tucker JS, Hall MH, Howie PW, et al. Should obstetricians see women with normal pregnancies? A multicentre randomised controlled trial of routine antenatal care by general practitioners and midwives compared with shared care led by obstetricians. BMJ. 1996;312(7030):554–559. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7030.554
97. Forster DA, McLachlan HL, Davey MA, et al. Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) increases women’s satisfaction with antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care: results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;3(16):28. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-0798-y
98. Axelsson G, Ahlborg G, Bodin L. Shift work, nitrous oxide exposure, and spontaneous abortion among Swedish midwives. Occup Environ Med. 1996;53(6):374–378. doi:10.1136/oem.53.6.374
99. Benoit C, Wrede S, Bourgeault I, Sandall J, De Vries R, van Teijlingen ER. Understanding the social organisation of maternity care systems: midwifery as a touchstone. Sociol Health Illn. 2005;27(6):722–737. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00471.x
100. Sheen K, Spiby H, Slade P. Exposure to traumatic perinatal experiences and posttraumatic stress symptoms in midwives: prevalence and association with burnout. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(2):578–587. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.11.006
101. Hildingsson I, Westlund K, Wiklund I. Burnout in Swedish midwives. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2013;4(3):87–91. doi:10.1016/j.srhc.2013.07.001
102. Högberg U. The decline in maternal mortality in Sweden: the role of community midwifery. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(8):1312–1320. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.8.1312
103. Halldorsdottir S, Karlsdottir SI. The primacy of the good midwife in midwifery services: an evolving theory of professionalism in midwifery. Scand J Caring Sci. 2011;25(4):806–817. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00886.x
104. Van Wagner V, Epoo B, Nastapoka J, Harney E. Reclaiming birth, health, and community: midwifery in the Inuit villages of Nunavik, Canada. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2007;52(4):384–391. doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2007.03.025
105. Cioffi J, Purcal N, Arundell F. A pilot study to investigate the effect of a simulation strategy on the clinical decision making of midwifery students. J Nurs Educ. 2005;44(3):131–134. doi:10.3928/01484834-20050301-06
106. Tincello DG, Williams A, Fowler GE, Adams EJ, Richmond DH, Alfirevic Z. Differences in episiotomy technique between midwives and doctors. BJOG. 2003;110(12):1041–1044. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2003.03030.x
107. van Alten D, Eskes M, Treffers PE; Midwifery in The Netherlands. The Wormerveer study; selection, mode of delivery, perinatal mortality and infant morbidity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96(6):656–662. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03279.x
108. Nyman VM, Prebensen AK, Flensner GE. Obese women’s experiences of encounters with midwives and physicians during pregnancy and childbirth. Midwifery. 2010;26(4):424–429. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2008.10.008
109. Turner C, Bain C, Schluter PJ, et al.; Nurses and Midwives e-cohort Group. Cohort Profile: the Nurses and Midwives e-Cohort Study--a novel electronic longitudinal study. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(1):53–60. doi:10.1093/ije/dym294
110. Tappin DM, Lumsden MA, Gilmour WH, et al. Randomised controlled trial of home based motivational interviewing by midwives to help pregnant smokers quit or cut down. BMJ. 2005;331(7513):373–377. doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7513.373
111. Walsh D. An ethnographic study of women’s experience of partnership caseload midwifery practice: the professional as a friend. Midwifery. 1999;15(3):165–176. doi:10.1016/S0266-6138(99)90061-X
112. Hunter B, Warren L. Midwives׳ experiences of workplace resilience. Midwifery. 2014;30(8):926–934. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2014.03.010
113. Farrell GA, Shafiei T. Workplace aggression, including bullying in nursing and midwifery: a descriptive survey (the SWAB study). Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(11):1423–1431. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.06.007
114. Chib A. The Aceh Besar midwives with mobile phones project: design and evaluation perspectives using the information and communication technologies for healthcare development model. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2010;15(3):500–525. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01515.x
115. Gaffney L, Smith CA. Use of complementary therapies in pregnancy: the perceptions of obstetricians and midwives in South Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;44(1):24–29. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2004.00161.x
116. Beck CT, LoGiudice J, Gable RK. A mixed-methods study of secondary traumatic stress in certified nurse-midwives: shaken belief in the birth process. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015;60(1):16–23. doi:10.1111/jmwh.12221
117. Yoshida Y, Sandall J. Occupational burnout and work factors in community and hospital midwives: a survey analysis. Midwifery. 2013;29(8):921–926. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2012.11.002
118. Sullivan K, Lock L, Homer CS. Factors that contribute to midwives staying in midwifery: a study in one area health service in New South Wales, Australia. Midwifery. 2011;27(3):331–335. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2011.01.007
119. Berry NS. Kaqchikel midwives, home births, and emergency obstetric referrals in Guatemala: contextualizing the choice to stay at home. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(8):1958–1969. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.09.005
120. Devane D, Lalor J. Midwives’ visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocographs: intra- and inter-observer agreement. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(2):133–141. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03575.x
121. Amelink-Verburg MP, Buitendijk SE. Pregnancy and labour in the Dutch maternity care system: what is normal? The role division between midwives and obstetricians. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55(3):216–225. doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2010.01.001
122. Hunter B. The importance of reciprocity in relationships between community-based midwives and mothers. Midwifery. 2006;22(4):308–322. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2005.11.002
123. McCourt C. Supporting choice and control? Communication and interaction between midwives and women at the antenatal booking visit. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(6):1307–1318. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.07.031
124. Sabroe S, Olsen J. Perinatal correlates of specific histological types of testicular cancer in patients below 35 years of age: a case-cohort study based on midwives’ records in Denmark. Int J Cancer. 1998;78(2):140–143. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19981005)78:2<140::AID-IJC2>3.0.CO;2-Z
125. Blix E, Sviggum O, Koss KS, Øian P. Inter-observer variation in assessment of 845 labour admission tests: comparison between midwives and obstetricians in the clinical setting and two experts. BJOG. 2003;110(1):1–5. doi:10.1046/j.1471-0528.2003.t01-1-02105.x
126. Dardas LA, Sawair FA, Nabolsi M, et al. Nursing research in the Arab Region: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Nurs Pract. 2019;25(3):e12716. doi:10.1111/ijn.12716
127. Özen Çınar İ. Bibliometric analysis of breast cancer research in the period 2009–2018. Int J Nurs Pract. 2020;26(3):e12845. doi:10.1111/ijn.12845
128. Tam WW, Wong EL, Wong FC, et al. Citation classics: top 50 cited articles in “respiratory system”. Respirology. 2013;18(1):71–81. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1843.2012.02262.x
129. Baltussen A, Kindler CH. Citation classics in critical care medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(5):902–910. doi:10.1007/s00134-004-2195-7
130. Shadgan B, Roig M, Hajghanbari B, et al. Top-cited articles in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(5):806–815. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.01.011
131. Kim ES, Yoon DY, Kim HJ, et al. Citation classics in neurointerventional research: a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited articles. J NeurointervSurg. 2017;9(5):508–511. doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012399
132. Ponce FA, Lozano AM. Highly cited works in neurosurgery. Part I: the 100 top-cited papers in neurosurgical journals. J Neurol Surg. 2010;112(2):223–232. doi:10.3171/2009.12.JNS091599
133. Tang X, Gong W, Yuan F, et al. Top-cited articles in digestive system disease from 1950 to 2013. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31(1):107–111. doi:10.1111/jgh.13032
134. Muñoz-Negrete FJ, Rebolleda G. Could the impact factor be obsolete? Will it be replaced soon by other indexes?. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol . 2020;95(2):53–54. doi:10.1016/j.oftal.2019.12.001
135. Shanbhag VK. Journal impact factor. Biomed J. 2016;39(3):225. doi:10.1016/j.bj.2015.12.001
136. Eley DS, Toosi M, Modarres M, Amini M, Geranmayeh M. The clinician-scientist track: an approach addressing Australia’s need for a pathway to train its future clinical academic workforce. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):227. doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1337-5
137. Pinto M, Pulgarín A, Escalona MI. Viewing information literacy concepts: a comparison of two branches of knowledge. Scientometrics. 2014;98(3):2311–2329. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1166-6
138. Khudzari JM, Kurian J, Tartakovsky B, et al. Bibliometric analysis of global research trends on microbial fuel cells using Scopus database. Biochem Eng J. 2018;136:51–60. doi:10.1016/j.bej.2018.05.002
139. Ponce FA, Lozano AM. Highly cited works in neurosurgery. Part II: the citation classics. J Neurosurg. 2010;112(2):233–246. doi: 10.3171/2009.12.JNS091600.
140. García-Fernández FJ, García-Fernández AE, Ikuta I, et al. A bibliometric evaluation of the top 100 cited dimethyl fumarate articles. Molecules. 2021;26(4):1085. doi:10.3390/molecules26041085
141. Ahmad SJ, Ahmed AR, Kowalewski KF, et al. Citation classics in general medical journals: assessing the quality of evidence; a systematic review. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench. 2020;13(2):101–114.
142. Balica A, Kohut A, Tsai TJ, et al. A bibliometric analysis of citation classics in the journal of ultrasound in medicine. J Ultrasound Med. 2020;39(7):1289–1297. doi:10.1002/jum.15220
© 2023 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License.
By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.