Midwifery practice is emotional and, at times, traumatic work. Cumulative exposure to this, in an unsupportive environment can result in the development of psychological and behavioural symptoms of distress. As there is a clear link between the wellbeing of staff and the quality of patient care, the issue of midwife wellbeing is gathering significant attention. Despite this, it can be rare to find a midwife who will publically admit to how much they are struggling. They soldier on, often in silence. This paper aims to present a narrative review of the literature in relation to work-related psychological distress in midwifery populations. Opportunities for change are presented with the intention of generating further conversations within the academic and healthcare communities. A narrative literature review was conducted. Internationally, midwives experience various types of work-related psychological distress. These include both organisational and occupational sources of stress. Dysfunctional working cultures and inadequate support are not conducive to safe patient care or the sustained progressive development of the midwifery profession. New research, revised international strategies and new evidence based interventions of support are required to support midwives in psychological distress. This will in turn maximise patient, public and staff safety. Ethically, midwives are entitled to a psychologically safe professional journey. This paper offers the principal conclusion that when maternity services invest in the mental health and wellbeing of midwives, they may reap the rewards of improved patient care, improved staff experience and safer maternity services.

Childbearing trans and nonbinary people are confronted with the heteronormative and cisgender frameworks that underpin “maternity” services. We explored the educational needs of 108 perinatal staff in the United Kingdom as related to the needs of trans and nonbinary service users. Participants were most confident in formulating care plans and least confident about the provision of colleagues’ perinatal care in this context. While the majority of participants were positive toward the trans and nonbinary communities, they considered that those communities remain marginalized in perinatal services. Transphobic, anti-trans, and nonbinary attitudes were highlighted by our respondents. Our findings suggest that caregivers witnessed transphobia among colleagues and were apprehensive themselves about providing care to childbearing trans and nonbinary people. They reported a cisheteronormative model of care that lacked awareness of trans and nonbinary issues. The educational needs identified included information about the practicalities of childbearing as a trans or nonbinary person, how to use inclusive language effectively, and creating policies and processes for supporting childbearing trans and nonbinary people. These caregivers’ preferences included hearing from trans and nonbinary people and sharing best practices among themselves, with open discussions about how to be inclusive.

Effective communication in relation to pregnancy and birth is crucial to quality care. A recent focus in reproductive healthcare on “sexed language” reflects an ideology of unchangeable sex binary and fear of erasure, from both cisgender women and the profession of midwifery. In this paper, we highlight how privileging sexed language causes harm to all who birth—including pregnant trans, gender diverse, and non‐binary people—and is, therefore, unethical and incompatible with the principles of midwifery. We show how this argument, which conflates midwifery with essentialist thinking, is unstable, and perpetuates and misappropriates midwifery's marginalized status. We also explore how sex and gender essentialism can be understood as colonialist, heteropatriarchal, and universalist, and therefore, reinforcing of these harmful principles. Midwifery has both the opportunity and duty to uphold reproductive justice. Midwifery can be a leader in the decolonization of childbirth and in defending the rights of all childbearing people, the majority of whom are cisgender women. As the systemwide use of inclusive language is central to this commitment, we offer guidance in relation to how inclusive language in perinatal and midwifery services may be realized.

Background and aim: Rates of cesarean section in Iran are unnecessarily high largely due to fear of childbirth (FOC), yet this may be reduced through education. Iranian women are keen to obtain information about pregnancy and birth online though sources may not be reliable. Consequently, the present study aimed to compare the effect of childbirth preparation courses delivered both online via the social media platform ‘Telegram’ and in-person on pregnancy experience, FOC, birth preference, and mode of birth. Methods: This quasi-experimental study included 165 primiparous pregnant women referred to the prenatal clinic in Tehran, Iran. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants, who were subsequently divided into three groups; (A) social media-based educational intervention (n = 53); (B) in-person educational intervention (n = 52), and (C) a control group who received no prenatal education (n = 50). During the 18th and 20th weeks of pregnancy, demographic questions along with the pregnancy experience scale (PES), and version A of the Wijma delivery expectancy/experience questionnaire (WDEQ‑A) were completed. In the 36th and 38th weeks of pregnancy, the PES and WDEQ‑A questionnaires, as well as birth preference form were further completed. Mode of birth was recorded in the first few days of postpartum. The Fisher’s exact test, along with ANOVA and Chi-square tests were used to determine associations between variables. A paired t-test was used to examine within-group comparisons. The Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test was used to investigate the intervening effect of economic status. Results: Post intervention, the mean score of pregnancy experience and FOC did not differ significantly between the three groups. Also, 86.8% of participants in group A, 90.4% of participants in group B, and 62% of participants in the control group preferred to give birth vaginally, which was statistically significant (p = 0.001). Moreover, 66% of participants in group A, 61.5% of participants in group B, and 50% of participants in the control group ultimately gave birth vaginally. None of the participants in group A underwent an elective cesarean section, while this rate was 7.7% and 24% for groups B and control, respectively (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Despite the non-significant differences identified between the three groups in terms of pregnancy experience and FOC, prenatal education delivered via social media may be usefully offered to Iranian women keen to receive education flexibly online. Trial registration: Name of the Registry: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials. Trial registration number: IRCT20180427039436N2. Date of registration: 15/06/2018. URL of trial registry record: https://www.irct.ir/trial/30890.