Table 2.

Details of reported professional learning, feedback, and reflection from the primary and second midwives when practicing CMA in the 1,430 births

	n (%)
The primary midwife reported acquiring new knowledge during the intervention*
Yes†	672 (47.0)
No	719 (50.3)
Missing data	39 (2.7)
The second midwife reported acquiring new knowledge during the intervention‡
Yes	546 (38.2)
No	797 (55.7)
Missing data	87 (6.1)
Reciprocal feedback between the primary and second midwife*
Yes	998 (69.8)
No	351 (24.5)
Missing data	81 (5.7)
The second midwife provided feedback when not satisfied with the primary midwife’s technique to prevent SPT‡
Yes	137 (9.6)
No	61 (4.3)
Missing data	80 (5.6)
The second midwife got feedback how the primary midwife experienced her presence‡
Yes	738 (51.6)
No	626 (43.8)
Missing data	66 (4.6)

^* Reported by the primary midwife

^† Dichotomised from a four-point Likert scale. Yes = ‘Completely agree,’ ‘Mostly agree’ or ‘Partially agree’; No = ‘Disagree’

^‡ Reported by the second midwife