Original Research

Graduates’ perceptions of their midwifery training during the four year comprehensive nursing diploma

R Chetty, NS Gwele
Curationis | Vol 24, No 2 | a837 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/curationis.v24i2.837 | © 2001 R Chetty, NS Gwele | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 28 September 2001 | Published: 28 September 2001

About the author(s)

R Chetty, School of nursing, University of Natal, South Africa
NS Gwele, School of nursing, University of Natal, South Africa

Full Text:

PDF (285KB)

Share this article

Bookmark and Share


Since its inception in 1986, the Comprehensive Nursing Diploma has received many criticisms from registered nurses, who graduated from the pre-existing programmes. This study attempts to examine the perceptions of graduates from this training programme, towards their midwifery education in terms of its adequacy in preparing them for midwifery practice. Twenty-nine graduates of the four year Comprehensive Nursing Programme completed self-administered questionnaires. Data was analysed by means of descriptive and inferential statistics, namely the paired t-test and the Wilcoxon test for matched pairs. Qualitative data was analysed to determine emerging themes and patterns. Differences in competence ratings on entry into midwifery units and those a year later, were significant at p = 0.0001.
It was found that graduates appear to have a positive perception of the midwifery component of their training programme. They found the theory aspect to be more than adequate in preparing them for their professional roles. However, with regards to clinical exposure, it was felt that the time period was too short and needed to be extended in order for them to attain clinical proficiency.


No related keywords in the metadata.


Total abstract views: 1349
Total article views: 2035


Crossref Citations

1. Effects of limited midwifery clinical education and practice standardisation of student preparedness
Zanyiwe Vuso, Sindiwe James
Nurse Education Today  vol: 55  first page: 134  year: 2017  
doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.05.014