Midwifery has undergone a significant transformation in recent decades, evolving from vocational training to university-based education. Despite international recommendations supporting competency-based education and professional regulation, little is known about how midwifery curricula are developed and the decision-making processes underpinning their design. The protocol followed PRISMA recommendations. An initial systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and ERIC from 10 January 2000 to 10 January 2025. Following peer-review recommendations, the search was updated to 10 January 2026 and expanded to include APA PsycINFO and CINAHL (via EBSCOhost). Data were extracted independently in duplicate using a piloted form capturing: (i) context of curriculum development; (ii) professional and legal frameworks cited; (iii) use of evidence; (iv) curriculum elements and modules; (v) interprofessional education; and (vi) decision-making steps in the development process. The updated and supplementary searches did not identify any additional eligible studies. A total of 4,478 records were screened. After screening and eligibility assessment, two studies met the inclusion criteria. Both described curriculum development processes within university-based midwifery education. Common themes included alignment with professional standards, stakeholder involvement, integration of evidence-informed approaches, and consideration of interprofessional learning. However, the reporting of decision-making processes was limited, and methodological transparency was generally insufficient. One study was published more than a decade ago, highlighting the scarcity of contemporary evidence in this field. Only a very limited body of literature describes how midwifery curricula are developed and how decisions regarding curriculum content and structure are made. Greater methodological transparency and further research are needed to strengthen the evidence base supporting curriculum development in midwifery education. This knowledge may contribute to the development of high-quality educational programmes aligned with contemporary professional and societal needs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pierron et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: