Program evaluation shows scholarships improve educational experiences in midwifery students, suggesting broader workforce benefits.
Background: Expanding the midwifery workforce is an important strategy for improving perinatal outcomes and addressing the current perinatal workforce shortage. However, the cost of education is a primary barrier to accessing midwifery programs and can affect students' educational experience. State initiatives to fund midwifery education, including through direct scholarships, offer a promising approach to support students and expand the midwifery workforce. Purpose: The purpose of this program evaluation was to explore the impact of scholarship funding on students' midwifery educational experiences. Methods: Data were obtained through the responses to a short survey that was distributed to the 25 students who had received a scholarship for their midwifery education. Quantitative responses were analyzed using frequencies or means, while qualitative responses were coded using the principles of content analysis. Results: Of the 25 eligible participants, 19 completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 76%. The survey responses revealed that cost is a consideration in selecting a midwifery program, although not the principal factor. Scholarship funding contributed to students' academic success, supported their mental health, and alleviated the financial burden of day-to-day expenses. Despite receiving this financial support, most students continued to work during their time in the midwifery program and will still graduate with student debt. Conclusion: Scholarships for midwifery students can help to mitigate a primary barrier to accessing education and can support the growth of the midwifery workforce with its associated improved perinatal outcomes. Additionally, targeted state funding can drive workforce diversification, contributing to health equity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blumenfeld et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: