Evaluating the effectiveness of preservice midwifery curricula in Ethiopia: A comparison of neonatal resuscitation and infection prevention practice of midwifery graduates trained in competency-based versus conventional curricula

0Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background Infection control and neonatal resuscitation are essential midwifery practices that can reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. However, in Ethiopia, theory-heavy midwifery education leads to limited clinical competence. To address this, Debre Tabor University implemented a competency-based curriculum in 2013. This study examines whether competency-based midwifery education produces graduates with significantly better performance in neonatal resuscitation and infection prevention compared to conventional education, thereby framing a testable argument about the curriculum’s effectiveness. Methods A comparative cross-sectional study assessed the infection prevention and neonatal resuscitation performance of 68 BSc midwifery graduates (32 competency-based vs. 36 conventional) from third-generation Ethiopian universities. Performance was measured using a validated observation tool in clinical settings for infection prevention and simulations for neonatal resuscitation. Mean percentage scores were compared using t-tests, with effect size illustrated via Gardner–Altman plots. Results Overall, midwives demonstrated 63.6% of essential neonatal resuscitation tasks, with competency-based curriculum graduates (CBCGs) having higher performance than conventional curriculum graduates (CCGs) (71.6% vs. 56.5%; t (66.0) = 3.82, p

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wondie, A. G., Siebeck, M., Sendekie, T. Y., Fischer, M., & Berndt, M. (2026). Evaluating the effectiveness of preservice midwifery curricula in Ethiopia: A comparison of neonatal resuscitation and infection prevention practice of midwifery graduates trained in competency-based versus conventional curricula. PLOS ONE, 21(2 February). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0338395

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free