Research & Evidence

Midwives’ obstetric ultrasound practices and research capacity

From the abstract: “This study aimed to explore midwives’ perspectives and experiences with obstetric ultrasound across key clinical and operational domains to assess the feasibility of conducting future multicentre maternal-foetal health research and surveillance.”

Editorial illustration: Midwives’ obstetric ultrasound practices and research capacity
Original editorial illustration for this article. A conceptual cover, not a photograph of the study, participants or reported event.

Published in PLOS One on 2026-03-26, this study is presented as an attributed evidence briefing. The excerpts below are the original researchers’ words, reproduced under their Creative Commons Attribution licence. Health Signal has selected the abstract and, where needed, opening background paragraphs; the complete methods, results, limitations and references remain in the linked paper.

Original study title: Exploring midwives’ practice patterns and capacity for obstetric ultrasound imaging: Towards a multicentre longitudinal materno-foetal research readiness in a low-resource setting

Original authors: Albert Dayor Piersson, Philomena Ajanaba Asakeboba, Sarah Teiko Quartei, Rachel Mendy, Joseph Arkorful, Ama Boahene Akomah, Gilbertson Allorsey

Source: PLOS One • DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0330235

Read the complete primary study ↗ · Creative Commons Attribution licence

From the researchers

Abstract

Midwives are often the first point of contact for pregnant women; yet their roles, training, and referral practices regarding obstetric ultrasound vary widely. This study aimed to explore midwives’ perspectives and experiences with obstetric ultrasound across key clinical and operational domains to assess the feasibility of conducting future multicentre maternal-foetal health research and surveillance.

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 475 practicing midwives across diverse healthcare settings in Ghana. A self-administered structured questionnaire was used to collect data on midwives’ perspectives and experiences regarding obstetric ultrasound across multiple dimensions. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel.

Most midwives were female, aged 26–35 years, held diploma qualifications, and practiced within district hospitals. Key ultrasound measures prioritised by midwives in the 1st trimester include gestational age, foetal viability, estimated date of delivery (EDD), number of foetuses, and the presence of an intrauterine gestational sac. Comparatively, midwives emphasize foetal anomaly detection, amniotic fluid (liquor) volume, placental location, foetal viability, and gestational age during second trimester ultrasound screening, while in the 3rd trimester screening, they prioritise foetal presentation, amniotic fluid volume, estimated foetal weight, placental location, and foetal viability. Findings suggest infrequent ultrasound reports indicating foetal anomalies. We observed a moderate perceived ability among midwives to understand foetal anomalies on obstetric ultrasound reports. Only 57.5% indicated they refer patients between one and three times for obstetric ultrasound before delivery. From the findings, it was observed that there is a predominance of sonographers undertaking obstetric ultrasound scans. Midwives may have moderate competence in interpreting obstetric ultrasound reports. An overwhelmingly positive response indicated that obstetric ultrasound improved their work performance, and a high proportion expressed interest in learning how to undertake obstetric ultrasound.

Our findings highlight the need to standardize midwifery practices and strengthen obstetric ultrasound literacy through targeted capacity-building initiatives, not only to improve clinical decision-making but also to establish a robust foundation for scalable maternal-foetal research in low-resource settings. Additionally, our study demonstrates the potential feasibility of engaging midwives as key stakeholders in multicentre maternal-foetal research initiatives.

Introduction

Obstetric ultrasound has become an indispensable component of antenatal care (ANC), offering critical insights into foetal development, maternal health, and pregnancy outcomes. In many healthcare settings, midwives are frontline providers of maternity services and play a crucial role in the coordination, interpretation, application of obstetric ultrasound findings, interventions and provision of appropriate treatments throughout pregnancy [1]. Their understanding of clinical indications for referral, competency in the interpretation of ultrasound reports, and recognition of foetal anomalies are vital for timely and appropriate care [2,3].

The clinical indications for obstetric ultrasound are diverse and span the entirety of prenatal care. In the first trimester, ultrasound is commonly used for confirming viability, determining gestational age, identifying multiple pregnancies, and non-identifiable images of gestational sac in utero in amenorrhoea [4]. In the second trimester, it is instrumental in anatomical surveys, interrogation of amniotic fluid volume, placenta location foetal viability, gestational age, and detection of congenital anomalies [5], while third-trimester scans are typically employed for growth monitoring and assessment of foetal wellbeing [6]. However, the extent to which midwives understand and apply these indications in practice, especially in resource-limited contexts, remains understudied.

Reading this evidence

Use the full paper to check the study design, participant selection, comparator and outcome definitions before drawing a practical conclusion. An association does not by itself show cause and effect. A reported performance measure needs its denominator and uncertainty. A finding from a particular facility, sample or time period should retain that scope when it is discussed elsewhere.

This briefing makes the source accessible within the wider research & evidence desk. It does not assess an individual patient or certify a product. When considering relevance to another health system, examine the original authors’ account of context and limitations, then seek local implementation evidence. The related reporting below provides other studies to read alongside this one; it is a topic connection, rather than a claim that their results are directly comparable.

© 2026 Albert Dayor Piersson, Philomena Ajanaba Asakeboba, Sarah Teiko Quartei, Rachel Mendy, Joseph Arkorful, Ama Boahene Akomah, Gilbertson Allorsey. Excerpts reproduced under CC BY. Selection, formatting and contextual notes by Health Signal. The researchers are the authors of the source study, not members of Health Signal’s staff.

Explore connected evidence

Health Signal Editorial Desk

Health Signal’s publication desk curates source-based health analysis and attributed research briefings. Study authors and originating institutions are credited within each article. Preparation used AI assistance; source and licence checks do not constitute independent replication or clinical endorsement.

More from this writer ↗