Editor’s Choice: The first 25 years of the Journal

The History of the Journal Editor’s Choice: The First 25 Years of the Journal A 50th anniversary is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to celebrate the achievements of the past and to reflect upon the promises of the future. In December of 1955, the American College of Nurse-Midwifery published the first Bulletin. In a 50-year evolution of systematic documentation, the publication steadily grew into the Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health as we know it today. A review of the content published during the Journal’s first 25 years of existence reveals a great deal about the development of professional midwifery in the United States. Research has matured, clinical practice has expanded, and new educational models have emerged. Many professional issues have gone away, while others persist. It is remarkable that exactly 100 issues were published between 1955 and 1980. Not surprising, myriad early articles have become timeless treasures for today’s midwifery clinicians, educators, and researchers. The editorial board invites you to look back with us at some highlights of the first-quarter century. Please join us on our year-by-year journey.

1958: Volume 3

1955/1956: Volume 1

1959: Volume 4

What could be more important to any publication than its inaugural year? In the case of the Bulletin, however, its first issue was published in December of 1955; thus, Volume 1 continued through the end of 1956, and both years must be looked at in tandem. In so doing, we discover an archival recording of the events that led up to the formation of the American College of Nurse-Midwifery; a listing of the first 124 members of the College; a description of 4 of the 5 nurse-midwifery education programs in existence at the time; and, most importantly, Hattie Hemschmeyer’s message to the members, which is a timeless clarion call to the profession.

In the first issue of 1959, Hazel Corbin offers us a comprehensive look at the “Historical Development of Nurse-Midwifery in This Country and Present Trends” [4(1):13–26], whereas the status of nurse-midwifery education in the United States is featured in the next issue. A report on the “Frontier Graduate School of Nurse-Midwifery” is provided [4(2):59 – 60] as well as updates by such star-studded midwifery luminaries as the following:

1957: Volume 2 Volume 2 focuses primarily on the organizational development of ACNM. New insights are gleaned from the reports of both ACNM’s 2nd annual meeting, as well as its 154 © 2005 by the American College of Nurse-Midwives Issued by Elsevier Inc.

participation in the 11th Congress of the International Confederation of Midwives. In her article, “Why NurseMidwifery” [2(4):58 – 61], Vera Keane answers those who question the need to be a midwife if a maternity nurse does not attend births: “. . . the attitudes, understandings, and skills [a midwife] has gained . . . will be invaluable to her, whatever her functions are in the maternity field.”

In a 1958 Editorial, Marion Strachan underscores the importance of “The Nurse-Midwife in Public Health” [3(2):25– 6], whereas Dr. J. H. de Haas, Chief of the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Section, National Public Health Service, traces the historic development of midwifery from a global perspective, provides a sketch of the contemporary situation, and addresses “The Future Role of Nurse and Midwife in Maternity Care” [3(4): 56 – 67].

● ●

● ●

Sara E. Fetter: “Nurse-Midwifery at Johns Hopkins” [4(2):39 – 46] Sister M. Theophane Shoemaker: “Catholic Sponsored Nurse-Midwifery Education” (the Catholic Maternity Institute) [4(2):47–9] Ernestine Wiedenbach: “Yale University’s Program” [4(2):50 – 4] Mary I. Crawford: “Nurse-Midwifery at Columbia” [4(2):55– 8] Volume 50, No. 2, March/April 2005 1526-9523/05/$30.00 • doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2004.12.012

Selected articles from the 4th annual meeting of ACNM are published in the last issue of the year and include the following: ● ●

●

Martha E. Rogers: “The Role of the University School of Nursing in Clinical Specialization” [4(3 and 4):86 –93] Emmanuel A. Friedman: “Graphic Analysis of Labor” [4(3 and 4):94 –105] (The first published research study to include statistical analysis) W. Newton Long/Ernestine Wiedenbach/Elizabeth Hosford: “Nurse-Midwives’ Evolving Role in Hospital Obstetric Services” [4(3 and 4):106 –14]

●

●

●

Lucille Woodville et al. presented the first recording of “Descriptive Data: Nurse-Midwives—U.S.A.” [8(1):30 – 7] “Putting the Legal Aspects of Nurse-Midwifery in Perspective” was the challenge for Nathan Hershey, ESQ [8(3):65–75] Eliza C. Avellar’s report on the Madera project [8(3):81– 91] affirmed that: “The success of the nurse-midwives in Madera has made its point: midwives can and will make a valuable contribution to California’s health.”

1960: Volume 5

1964: Volume 9

The 1960 “Summary of the Tenth Thousand Confinement Records of the Frontier Nursing Service,” which covers the period from April 17, 1952 to July 1, 1954 [5(1):1–9], is of great historic significance. During this same year, Vera Keane provides us a first look at “Accreditation and Responsibility” [5(2):39 – 41], whereas Marion Strachan offers a template for “Functions, Standards and Qualifications of Nurse-Midwives in a Hospital Service” [5(3):59 – 68].

In 1964, ACNM President Eunice Ernst set out to raise the collective consciousness of the readership about “How the Midwife Can Contribute to Scientific Research” [9(1):1–7] and concluded that:

1961: Volume 6 Most midwives today trace their “coming of age” back to the Madera Project in California. In a 1961 report, Edith Baldwin informed the ACNM membership about the “Madera Milestone” [6(2):24 –5] and explained: “In March 1960, a project was proposed to study the feasibility of employing nurse-midwives . . . in a rural county hospital maternity and newborn service for the purpose of improving quantity and quality of care to the ultimate reduction of morbidity and mortality. . . .” 1962: Volume 7 A review by Aileen Hogan of the 1961 Mead Johnson film, “Hospital Maternity Care: Family-Centered,” endorsed a concept that eventually became Sister Mary Stella’s “claim to fame.” Other articles of note during 1962 include the following: ● ●

Robert A. Bradley: “Fathers as Labor Coaches” [7(2): 34 –9] Niles and Michael Newton: “Management of Lactation” [7(4):85–94]

1963: Volume 8 A 1963 Editorial featured ”Families and Maternity Care Around the World” by Margaret Mead [8(1):2–7]. That same year: Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health • www.jmwh.org

“The midwife . . . is the logical person to observe, record, and analyze the normal reproductive process and the factors that influence it. . . . Let not midwifery be found wanting.” Later that same year, Joy Alice Ruth reported her findings from “An Experimental Study in the Effects of a Pattern of Supervised Post Partum Exercises on Mothers’ Abdominal Musculature and Involution” [9(3):64 –5]. 1965: Volume 10 1965 marked the 10th anniversary of the Bulletin. The first issue was dedicated to looking back and ahead: ● ●

Vera Keane: “Where Are We Going?” (Editorial) [10(1): 1–3] Reports of the First Five Presidents of the ACNM: Hattie Hemschemeyer (1955–1957) [10(1):4 –10] Sister M. Theophane (1957–1959) [10(1):11–3] Mary I. Crawford (1959 –1961) [10(1):14 – 6] Eunice Ernst (1961–1963) [10(1):17–21] Sister M. Stella (1963–1965) [10(1):22–5]

Similarly, the second issue was dedicated to nursemidwifery education and featured reports from all 9 programs in the United States (including Puerto Rico) [10(2): 31– 61]. The third issue of 1965 published “Unfinished Business in Maternal Health,” Dr. Helen M. Wallace’s presentation at the 10th annual meeting of ACNM; this article provides a comprehensive review of the MCH issues of the day [10(3):65–91]. In the fourth issue, Marion Strachan offers compelling insights into some contemporary dissatisfactions with maternity care in her article, “Identification of Major Needs in the Care of Mother and Infant Throughout the Maternity Cycle” [10(4):103–10]. 155

1966: Volume 11 1966 not only introduced an entirely new look for the Bulletin with its colorful new cover, but it presented such classics as the following: ● ●

●

●

Shirley Okrent: “The Nurse-Midwife in a Family Planning Clinic” [11(2):48 –54] “Statements of Functions, Standards and Qualifications for the Practice of Nurse-Midwifery” authored by the Committee on Functions, Standards, and Qualifications. See editorial [11(2):46 –7] for the description of this document [11(2):55– 61] A panel discussion moderated by ACNM President-Elect Lillian Runnerstrom on “Nurse-Midwifery Legislation: Pro and Con” [11(2):62– 8] Ruth Lubic: “A Nurse-Midwife Learns Exciting Things in Elementary School,” an insightful article, which might otherwise have been entitled, “We’re Wrong About the Slum Mother” [11(4):118 –29]

1967: Volume 12 “Nurse-Midwifery at the Crossroads,” Lillian Runnerstrom’s presidential address from the 12th annual meeting of ACNM, was published in the November 1967 issue of the Bulletin [12(4):119 –22]. In it, she identifies barriers confronting nurse-midwifery at the time, in particular, opposition from medicine and nursing, and asserts: “We must decide who we are, what we can contribute, how we can make this contribution and where it can best be made. Then we must present a united front. . . .” 1968: Volume 13 The first theme issue dedicated to a clinical topic appeared in the August 1968 issue. Five articles on contraception discuss patient education, access to care, physiology, medical uses of oral contraceptives, and legal implications for women and providers. Although none of the articles reviewed the role of nurse-midwives in providing contraceptive care, all continue to be germane to family planning care today.

Other articles that heralded this future were the following: ● ● ●

1970: Volume 15 Editorials and letters to the editor in the 2 issues of 1970 discuss the manpower shortage in obstetrics, suggest ideas for increasing access to midwifery education, and encourage the development of more midwives who would work clinically. Sandra Regenie’s first editorial referred to the clinical nurse-midwife’s rapidly expanding need for updated scientific information. She announced the Bulletin’s intention to focus on publication of material that “brings new knowledge to bear on the clinical practice of nursemidwifery” [15(2):34 –5]. 1971: Volume 16 This year marked 2 very important developments for nurse-midwifery: the publication of the first joint statement between the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists with the ACNM [16(1):22–3] and the establishment of national certification and a national certifying examination—the rationale, which was cogently described by Joyce Cameron Foster in her article, “Why National Certification” [16(4):94 –9]. In addition, the following articles addressed issues related to future challenges to practice: ●

●

1969: Volume 14 In 1969, the American College of Nurse-Midwifery and the American Association of Nurse-Midwives merged to form the current American College of Nurse-Midwives. Phyllis Leppert, Editor of the Bulletin, announced the merger in an Editorial [14(3):68 –9] with these words: “The next 40 years of nurse-midwifery organization will be challenging, demanding and, at times, frustrating. We will try new ways of delivering our services, some creative, some traditional, some will be blind alleys, others the road for the future.” 156

The A.C.N.M. Foundation, Inc. annual report commemorating its first anniversary [14(1):2] The ACNM Research Committee’s compilation of Nurse-Midwifery Statistics [14(3):70 –5] William J. Lubic’s article, “Personal and professional liability insurance: The need understood and a plan realized” [14(4):100 –2]

●

Katherine Kendall: “The Nurse-Midwife in Clinical Practice” [16(1):5–11] cites several keys to professional growth, including: focusing on the consumer, educating nurse-midwives with special skills (e.g., teaching, public health, research, and fostering interest among undergraduate nurses) Louis Hellman: “Nurse-Midwifery: Fifteen Years” [16(3):71–9] recounts his success in establishing nursemidwifery at King’s County Hospital and highlights issues between the profession and nursing and obstetrics John Haire: “Consumerism in Maternity Care” [16(3): 80 – 4] discusses the burgeoning consumer movement and outlines a proposal for the role of the freestanding birth center

1972: Volume 17 In 1972, it became clear that clinical opportunities for nurse-midwives were increasing, especially those positions that allowed for full-scope practice models. Ruth Lubic’s address to ACOG, “The Nurse-Midwife Joins the Team,” Volume 50, No. 2, March/April 2005

[17(3):73–7] dispels several myths about nurse-midwifery practice. In addition, 2 important professional documents were published: ● ●

Standards for Evaluation of Nurse-Midwifery Procedural Functions [17(2):50 –1] ACNM Philosophy [17(3):61]

1973: Volume 18 As explained in the first editorial of the year, the Bulletin adopted a new name, the Journal of Nurse-Midwifery (JNM), so that it can “ . . . reflect the national and international expansion of the range and breadth of nursemidwifery practice of the last few years” [18(1):2]. Clinical articles published this year reflect the expansion of midwifery practice to encompass family planning. Two classic articles include: ●

●

Helen Varney, et al.: “We Hear You—Keep Talking,” which introduces the use of modules in mastery learning [18(2):9 –13] Rita Kroska: “The Emblem of the American College of Nurse-Midwives,” which explains, for the first time, the origin of the ACNM seal [18(3):23– 4]

● ●

●

in fact, a few ideas that were prescient versions of established programs today are apparent. Here is a sample: Elizabeth Graham’s article, “Young Parents’ Group,” is a prototype for peer support in combination with childbirth preparation, which is one component of today’s CenteringPregnancy model of prenatal care. [20(1):15–9] The 20th anniversary issue was “A Tribute to ACNM’s Pioneers” [20(2)] The fall issue [20(3)] focused on “Creative Approaches to Nurse-Midwifery Education” and includes “Mastery Learning: An Approach to Individualized Learning” by Evelyn Hart and Teresa Marsico [20(3):17–9]. Additional articles describe modular instruction, the use of computer-aided technology, faculty exchange, videotape instruction, and the use of an educational consultant. A summary of “Issues in Nurse-Midwifery Education” is presented by Charlotte Theriault Houde and addresses many issues familiar to contemporary nurse-midwifery educators [20(3):9 –14) In her first editorial as Editor-in-Chief, Mary Ann Shah stated: “While today’s success was yesterday’s dream . . . it is but tomorrow’s promise of excellence.” [20(2):4]

1974: Volume 19 Authors’ awareness of the need to evaluate nurse-midwifery outcomes and the economic viability of a nursemidwifery service is becoming more evident as the profession matures. ● ●

●

Dorothea Lang [editorial] describes the need to develop evaluation techniques for midwifery practice. Ruth White: “A Nurse-Midwife Looks Ahead” surveys 27 practices on the financing of their practice and their ability to track their outcomes [19(3):4 –10] Nancy Davidson: REEDA demonstrates how nurse-midwives use science to look at frequently ignored clinical issues: Evaluating Postpartum Healing [19(2):6 –11]

1976: Volume 21 The first report by the Legislation Committee of the American College of Nurse-Midwives on “Legislation and Nurse-Midwifery Practice in the USA” was published n the Summer of 1976 [21(2)]. Reported by Alice E. Forman and Elizabeth M. Cooper, this issue summarizes the legal status of nurse-midwifery practice in all 50 states. The fall issue broke new ground in highlighting a new concept: “Alternative Patterns of Nurse-Midwifery Care” with the following descriptions of nurse-midwifery demonstration programs: ● ●

1975: Volume 20 It is worth pausing for a moment at 1975, the 20th anniversary of ACNM. The Journal grew physically from 5.5 ⫻ 8.5 inches to 8.5 ⫻ 11 inches “to allow for an increase in content and better presentation of scientific data” per Elizabeth Sharp’s editorial [20(1):4]. Volume 20 marks the beginning of several issues in which letters to the editor, editorials, and ACNM documents grapple with the expansion of midwifery into homebirth services and the role of consumerism. Indeed, those specific issues were important components of the alternative birthing movement that fostered and supported the rapid expansion of our profession. ●

The 4 issues of 1975 reveal a great deal about the maturation of our profession and some recurrent themes;

Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health • www.jmwh.org

●

Ruth W. Lubic: “The Childbearing Center” [21(3):24 –5] Sharon Schindler Rising: “The Consumer-Professional Balance” [21(3):25–7] Elizabeth Hosford: “The Home Birth Movement” [21(3):27–30]

The winter issue of 1976 introduces “Nurse-Midwifery and Ethics . . . A Beginning” by Henry O. Thompson and Joyce E Beebe [21(4):7–12]. 1977: Volume 22 Articles on “Liberian Obstetrics: The Birth and Development of Midwifery” by Ruth A. Etzel [22(1):18 –35] and “The Social Construction of Birth” by Barbara Katz Rothman [22(2):9 –13] exemplify JNM’s expansion into international issues and feminist theory. A 2-part “Selected Annotated Bibliography on Midwives and Family Planning” by Mary Rose Zabarenko and Patri157

cia Kilroy Bednarz offers an exceptional view of the role played by midwives in family-planning services during the 1960s and 1970s [22(2):39 – 46; 22(3):32– 8].

1978: Volume 23 Helen V. Burst’s Presidential address at the 23rd annual meeting titled, “Our Three Ring Circus” [2(Fall):11–5], cogently summarizes the territorial frictions and balances between the profession of nurse-midwifery and 1) medicine, 2) nursing, and 3) lay midwifery, secondary to our role as consumer advocates as follows: “Nurse-midwives are caught in the middle of the conflict between the consumer and the physician. . . . Now I, like most of you, am for progress and against impotence; but I do not believe in annihilation, . . . As we are nurse-midwives I call upon us, individually and collectively, to create the modes of practice that will take us out of our binds and conflicts without destroying ourselves in the process.” In that same issue, Judith P. Rooks, Chairperson of the ACNM Research and Statistics Committee, reviewed the results of the first national survey [23(Fall):15–9], which resulted in the publication of Nurse-Midwifery in the United States: 1976 –1977. These data detail practice patterns that describe the nurse-midwifery model of care and describes neatly where the profession fits between the polarizing forces of the times.

1979: Volume 24 The blue cover we have today and the initiation of bimonthly publication was inaugurated in the January/ February issue of 1979. ●

●

●

Nancy Jo Reedy’s “Nurse-Midwife in Complicated Obstetrics: Trend or Treason?” represents the first article in this journal to raise the issue of how we define “normal” and how nurse-midwives function in caring for women with high-risk conditions [24(1):11–7]. The ACNM Education Committee presents the “Core Competencies in Nurse-Midwifery: Expected Outcomes of Nurse-Midwifery Education” for the very first time [24(1):32– 6]. Sandi Dietrich offers “Ten Steps in Establishing a NurseMidwifery Service/Private Practice: For the NurseMidwife Who’s Looking for a Job in the System” [24(2)9 –18].

158

1980: Volume 25 At the beginning of our 25th year, the 94th issue of this journal begins with an editorial by Nancy Kraus about how our profession should respond to the American Nurses Association proposal that a baccalaureate be the entry-intopractice degree requirement by 1985 [25(1):1–2]. Three editorials in the March/April and May/June issues discuss the need and reasons for nurse-midwifery research. At the same time, research-based clinical articles and reports of original research begin to appear with increased frequency as evidenced by the following: ● ●

Joyce Roberts: “Alternative Positions for Childbirth. Part 1. First Stage of Labor” [25(4):11–20] Sally Mather: “Women’s Interests in Alternative Maternity Facilities” [25(3):3–10]

CONCLUSION Twenty-five years of history are reflected in the “Editor’s Choice” presented herein, as derived from the first 100 issues of this journal. Clearly, articles on clinical practice gradually became more research-based, whereas portrayals of midwifery practice evolved from descriptions of individual midwifery services to descriptions of practice models. Articles on education moved from reports about the number of graduating students to discussions of curriculum designs, learning styles, and innovative teaching techniques. During the Journal’s first 25 years, the profession defined and redefined itself in relation to the changing needs of women and families, differing structures in the health care system, and interrelationships with other professional and consumer groups. We accommodated periods of rapid growth, established standards for education and practice, and revised them in the context of each new social milieu. Today, as midwifery increasingly focuses its attention on “evidence-based” practice and midwife researchers are beginning to emerge in larger numbers, attention is being drawn to the importance of research even more. Looking ahead to the next 50 years, it is clear that the momentum for even greater excellence is building. The Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health is poised to continue the long tradition of responding creatively to the current needs of the profession and the women and families we serve. Mary Ann Shah, CNM, MS Editor Emeritus Mary K. Barger, CNM, MPH Associate Editor Tekoa L. King, CNM, MPH Editor-in-Chief

Volume 50, No. 2, March/April 2005