An assessment of the cost-effectiveness of midwife-led care in the United Kingdom

Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women

BACKGROUND

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of maternity models of care

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the full extent of cost-effectiveness evidence available for evaluating alternative Maternity Models of Care (MMC) and to summarize findings narratively.

METHODS

Articles that included a decision tree or state-based (Markov) model to explore the cost-effectiveness of an MMC, and at least one comparator MMC, were identified from a systematic literature review. The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases were searched for papers published in English, Arabic, and French. A narrative synthesis was conducted to analyse results.

RESULTS

Three studies were included; all using cost-effectiveness decision tree models with data sourced from a combination of trials, databases, and the literature. Study quality was fair to poor. Each study compared midwife-led or doula-assisted care to obstetrician- or physician-led care. The findings from these studies indicate that midwife and doula led MMCs may provide value.

CONCLUSION

The findings of these studies indicate weak evidence that midwife and doula models of care may be a cost-effective or cost-saving alternative to standard care. However, the poor quality of evidence, lack of standardised MMC classifications, and the dearth of research conducted in this area are barriers to conclusive evaluation and highlight the need for more research incorporating appropriate models and population diversity.

Project20: Maternity care mechanisms that improve (or exacerbate) health inequalities. A realist evaluation

BACKGROUND

Women with low socioeconomic status and social risk factors are at a disproportionate risk of poor birth outcomes and experiences of maternity care. Specialist models of maternity care that offer continuity are known to improve outcomes but underlying mechanisms are not well understood.

AIM

To evaluate two UK specialist models of care that provide continuity to women with social risk factors and identify specific mechanisms that reduce, or exacerbate, health inequalities.

METHODS

Realist informed interviews were undertaken throughout pregnancy and the postnatal period with 20 women with social risk factors who experienced a specialist model of care.

FINDINGS

Experiences of stigma, discrimination and paternalistic care were reported when women were not in the presence of a known midwife during care episodes. Practical and emotional support, and evidence-based information offered by a known midwife improved disclosure of social risk factors, eased perceptions of surveillance and enabled active participation. Continuity of care offered reduced women's anxiety, enabled the development of a supportive network and improved women's ability to seek timely help. Women described how specialist model midwives knew their medical and social history and how this improved safety. Care set in the community by a team of six known midwives appeared to enhance these benefits.

CONCLUSION

The identification of specific maternity care mechanisms supports current policy initiatives to scale up continuity models and will be useful in future evaluation of services for marginalised groups. However, the specialist models of care cannot overcome all inequalities without improvements in the maternity system as a whole.

Maternity service reconfigurations for intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing shortages: modelling of low-risk births in England

INTRODUCTION

Choice of birth setting is important and it is valuable to know how reconfiguring available settings may affect midwifery staffing needs. COVID-19-related health system pressures have meant restriction of community births. We aimed to model the potential of service reconfigurations to offset midwifery staffing shortages.

METHODS

We adapted the Birthrate Plus method to develop a tool that models the effects on intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing requirements of changing service configurations for low-risk births. We tested our tool on two hypothetical model trusts with different baseline configurations of hospital and community low-risk birth services, representing those most common in England, and applied it to scenarios with midwifery staffing shortages of 15%, 25% and 35%. In scenarios with midwifery staffing shortages above 15%, we modelled restricting community births in line with professional guidance on COVID-19 service reconfiguration. For shortages of 15%, we modelled expanding community births per the target of the Maternity Transformation programme.

RESULTS

Expanding community births with 15% shortages required 0.0 and 0.1 whole-time equivalent more midwives in our respective trusts compared with baseline, representing 0% and 0.1% of overall staffing requirements net of shortages. Restricting home births with 25% shortages reduced midwifery staffing need by 0.1 midwives (-0.1% of staffing) and 0.3 midwives (-0.3%). Suspending community births with 35% shortages meant changes of -0.3 midwives (-0.3%) and -0.5 midwives (-0.5%) in the two trusts. Sensitivity analysis showed that our results were robust even under extreme assumptions.

CONCLUSION

Our model found that reconfiguring maternity services in response to shortages has a negligible effect on intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing needs. Given this, with lower degrees of shortage, managers can consider increasing community birth options where there is demand. In situations of severe shortage, reconfiguration cannot recoup the shortage and managers must decide how to modify service arrangements.

A comparison between midwifery and obstetric care at birth in Spain: Across-sectional study of perinatal outcomes

BACKGROUND

The organizational structure of maternity services determines the choice of which professionals provide care during pregnancy, birth, and the postnatal period, and it influences the kind of care they deliver and the level of continuity of care offered. There is considerable evidence that demonstrates a relationship between how care is provided and the maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Registered midwives and obstetricians provide maternity care across Spain. To date, no studies have assessed whether maternity outcomes differ between these two groups.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the association between the care received (midwifery care versus obstetric care) and the maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with normal, low- and medium-risk pregnancies in Spain from 2016 to 2019.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study was carried out as part of COST Action IS1405 at 44 public hospitals in Spain in the years 2016-2019. The protocol can be accessed through the registry ISRCTN14062994. The sample size of this study was 11,537 women. The primary outcome was mode of birth. The secondary outcomes included augmentation with oxytocin, use of epidural analgesia, women's position at birth, perineal integrity, third stage of labour management, maternal and neonatal admission to intensive care, Apgar score, neonatal resuscitation, and early initiation of breastfeeding. Chi-square tests for categorical variables and independent sample t-test for continuous variables to assess differences between the midwifery and obstetric groups were calculated. Odds ratio with intervals of confidence at 95% were calculated for obstetric interventions and perinatal outcomes. A multivariate logistic regression model was applied in order to examine the effect of type of healthcare provider on perinatal outcomes. These models were adjusted for care provider, type of onset of labour, use of anaesthesia, pregnancy risk, maternal age, parity, and gestational age at birth.

RESULTS

Midwifery care was associated with lower rates of operative births and severe perineal damage and had no higher adverse outcomes. No statistically significant differences were observed in the use of other obstetric interventions between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study should encourage a shift in the current maternity care system towards a greater integration of midwifery-led services in order to achieve optimal birth outcomes for women and newborns.

REGISTRY NUMBER

ISRCTN14062994.

Obstetrician involvement in planned midwife-led births: a cohort study in an obstetric department of a University Hospital in Switzerland

Background

Healthy women with low risk singleton pregnancies are offered a midwife-led birth model at our department. Exclusion criteria for midwife-led births include a range of abnormalities in medical history and during the course of pregnancy. In case of complications before, during or after labor and birth, an obstetrician is involved. The purpose of this study was 1) to evaluate the frequency of and reasons for secondary obstetrician involvement in planned midwife-led births and 2) to assess the maternal and neonatal outcome.

Methods

We analyzed a cohort of planned midwife-led births during a 14 years period (2006-2019). Evaluation included a comparison between midwife-led births with or without secondary obstetrician involvement, regarding maternal characteristics, birth mode, and maternal and neonatal outcome. Statistical analysis was performed by unpaired t-tests and Chi-square tests.

Results

In total, there were 532 intended midwife-led births between 2006 and 2019 (2.6% of all births during this time-period at the department). Among these, 302 (57%) women had spontaneous vaginal births as midwife-led births. In the remaining 230 (43%) births, obstetricians were involved: 62% of women with obstetrician involvement had spontaneous vaginal births, 25% instrumental vaginal births and 13% caesarean sections. Overall, the caesarean section rate was 5.6% in the whole cohort of women with intended midwife-led births. Reasons for obstetrician involvement primarily included necessity for labor induction, abnormal fetal heart rate monitoring, thick meconium-stained amniotic fluid, prolonged first or second stage of labor, desire for epidural analgesia, obstetrical anal sphincter injuries, retention of placenta and postpartum hemorrhage. There was a significantly higher rate of primiparous women in the group with obstetrician involvement. Arterial umbilical cord pH < 7.10 occurred significantly more often in the group with obstetrician involvement, while 5′ Apgar score < 7 did not differ significantly. The overall transfer rate of newborns to neonatal intensive care unit was low (1.3%).

Conclusion

A midwife-led birth in our setting is a safe alternative to a primarily obstetrician-led birth, provided that selection criteria are being followed and prompt obstetrician involvement is available in case of abnormal course of labor and birth or postpartum complications.

Job satisfaction and sustainability of midwives working in caseload models of care: An integrative literature review

BACKGROUND

Demand for caseload midwifery care continues to outstrip supply. We know little about what sustains midwives working in caseload models of care.

AIM

This review systematically identifies and synthesises research findings reporting on factors which contribute to job satisfaction, and therefore the sustainability of practice, of midwives working in caseload models of care.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy explored the electronic databases CINAHL Plus with Full Text, MEDLINE, PubMED, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Articles were assessed using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool. Data analysis and synthesis of these publications were conducted using a narrative synthesis approach.

FINDINGS

Twenty-two articles were reviewed. Factors which contribute to the job satisfaction and sustainability of practice of midwives working in caseload models are: the ability to build relationships with women; flexibility and control over own working arrangements; professional autonomy and identity; and, organisational and practice arrangements.

CONCLUSION

Insights into the factors which contribute to the job satisfaction and sustainability of practice of midwives in caseload models of care enables both midwives and healthcare administrators to more effectively implement and support midwifery-led caseload models of care which have been shown to improve outcomes for childbearing women.

Differential access to continuity of midwifery care in Queensland, Australia

ObjectiveTo determine maternal access to continuity of midwifery care in public maternity hospitals across the state of Queensland, Australia. MethodsMaternal access to continuity of midwifery care in Queensland was modelled by considering the proportion of midwives publicly employed to provide continuity of midwifery care alongside 2017 birth data for Queensland Hospital and Health Services. The model assumed an average caseload per full-time equivalent midwife working in continuity of care with 35 women per annum, based on state Nursing and Midwifery Award conditions. Hospitals were grouped into five clusters using standard Australian hospital classifications. ResultsTwenty-seven facilities (out of 39, 69%) across all 15 hospital and health services in Queensland providing a maternity service offered continuity of midwifery care in 2017 (birthing onsite). Modelling applying the assumed caseload of 35 women per full-time equivalent midwife found wide variations in the percentage of women able to access continuity of midwifery care, with access available for an estimated 18% of childbearing women across the state. Hospital classifications with higher clinical services capability and birth volume did not equate with higher access to continuity of midwifery care in metropolitan areas. Regional health services with level 3 district hospitals assisting with &lt;500 births showed higher levels of access, potentially due to additional challenges to meet local population needs to those of a metropolitan service. Access to full continuity of midwifery care in level 3 remote hospitals (&lt;500 births) was artificially inflated due to planned pre-labour transfers for women requiring specialised intrapartum care and women who planned to birth at other hospitals. ConclusionsDespite strong evidence that continuity of midwifery care offers optimal care for women and their babies, there was significant variation in implementation and scale-up of these models across hospital jurisdictions. What is known about the topic?Access to continuity of midwifery care for pregnant women within the public health system varies widely; however, access variation among different hospital classification groups in Australian states and territories has not been systematically mapped. What does this paper add?This paper identified differential access to continuity of midwifery care among hospital classifications grouped for clinical services capability and birth volume in one state, Queensland. It shows that higher clinical services capability and birth volume did not equate with higher access to continuity of midwifery care in metropolitan areas. What are the implications for practitionersScaling up continuity of midwifery care among all hospital classification groups in Queensland remains an important public health strategy to address equitable service access.

Transfers of Care between Healthcare Professionals in Obstetric Units of Different Sizes across Spain and in a Hospital in Ireland: The MidconBirth Study

BACKGROUND

In Europe, the majority of healthy women give birth at conventional obstetric units with the assistance of registered midwives. This study examines the relationships between the intrapartum transfer of care (TOC) from midwife to obstetrician-led maternity care, obstetric unit size (OUS) with different degrees of midwifery autonomy, intrapartum interventions and birth outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study promoted by the COST Action IS1405 was carried out at eight public hospitals in Spain and Ireland between 2016-2019. The primary outcome was TOC. The secondary outcomes included type of onset of labour, oxytocin stimulation, epidural analgesia, type of birth, episiotomy/perineal injury, postpartum haemorrhage, early initiation of breastfeeding and early skin-to-skin contact. A logistic regression was performed to ascertain the effects of studied co-variables on the likelihood that participants had a TOC; Results: Out of a total of 2,126 low-risk women, those whose intrapartum care was initiated by a midwife (1772) were selected. There were statistically significant differences between TOC and OUS (S1 = 29.0%, S2 = 44.0%, S3 = 52.9%, S4 = 30.2%, p < 0.001). Statistically differences between OUS and onset of labour, oxytocin stimulation, type of birth and episiotomy or perineal injury were observed (p = 0.009, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001 respectively); Conclusions: Findings suggest that the model of care and OUS have a significant effect on the prevalence of intrapartum TOC and the birth outcomes. Future research should examine how models of care differ as a function of the OUS in a hospital, as well as the cost-effectiveness for the health care system.

Sustaining the quality of midwifery practice in Belgium: Challenges and opportunities for advanced midwife practitioners

BACKGROUND

Midwifery practice is essential in achieving high-quality maternal and newborn care in all settings and countries. However, midwifery practice has become more complex over the past decades. Considerable demands are being placed on midwives to meet increasing epidemiological, socio-economic, and technological challenges. These require a well-trained midwifery workforce ready to shape the care in the near and long-term future.

OBJECTIVE

To discuss advanced midwife practitioner role implementation in Belgium as a possible answer to healthcare-related challenges that impact midwifery practice. Furthermore, to stimulate a debate within the profession at all levels in Belgium and in countries considering advanced midwife practitioner roles.

METHOD

The framework by De Geest et al. (2008) served as a basis for discussing the drivers for advanced midwife practitioner role implementation: the legal, policy and economic context, workforce issues, education, practice patterns, and healthcare needs of the population.

FINDINGS

A legal basis for advanced midwife practitioner role implementation is lacking in Belgium. Remuneration opportunities for the non-clinical part of these roles (e.g. leadership and innovation activities) are missing. It might be challenging for healthcare organisations to support the implementation of such roles, as immediate revenues of non-clinical activities are absent. However, sufficient potential resources are available to fill in future advanced midwife practitioner positions. Additionally, advanced midwife practitioner specific master programmes are being planned in the near future.

CONCLUSIONS

Although several barriers for the implementation of advanced midwife practitioner roles were identified, a discussion should be held on the opportunities of implementing these roles to facilitate the development of new models of care that meet current and future challenges in midwifery practice and healthcare. After initial discussions amongst midwives in academic, managerial, and policy positions, stakeholders such as obstetricians, general practitioners, associations representing healthcare organisations, and policy makers should be involved as a next step.

Midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care for low-risk pregnancies: A cost comparison

OBJECTIVE

Low-risk pregnant women cared for by midwives have similar birth outcomes to women cared for by physicians, although experiencing fewer medical procedures. However, limited research has assessed cost implications in the United States. Using national data, we assessed costs and resource use of midwife-led care vs obstetrician-led care for low-risk pregnancies using a decision-analytic approach.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model of costs (health plan payments to clinicians) and use of medical procedures during childbirth (epidural analgesia, labor induction, cesarean birth, episiotomy) and outcomes of care (birth at preterm gestation) that may differ with midwife-led vs obstetrician-led care. Model parameters for obstetric procedures were generated using Listening to Mothers III data, a national survey of women who gave birth in US hospitals in 2011-2012 and other published estimates. Cost estimates came from published or publicly available information on health insurance claims payments.

RESULTS

The costs of childbirth for low-risk women with midwife-led care were, on average, $2262 less than births to low-risk women cared for by obstetricians. These cost differences derive from lower rates of preterm birth and episiotomy among women with midwife-led care, compared with obstetrician-led care. Across the population of US women with low-risk births each year (approximately 2.6 million), the model predicted substantially fewer preterm births (167 259 vs 219 427 for midwife-led vs obstetrician-led care) and fewer episiotomies (170 504 vs 415 686, for midwife-led vs obstetrician-led care).

CONCLUSIONS

A shift from obstetrician-led care to midwife-led care for low-risk pregnancies could be cost saving.

Using a quality care framework to evaluate user and provider experiences of maternity care: A comparative study

OBJECTIVE

The Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework describes the components and characteristics of quality care and emphasises relational and continuity elements. Continuity of care is increasingly a focus of maternity care policy in the United Kingdom. While some outcomes have been shown to be improved, there is uncertainty about why certain models of care are more effective. Our overall objective is to develop a maternity care evaluation toolkit which incorporates this Framework along with other outcome evaluations. An initial step in developing this toolkit was to use the adapted Framework to evaluate perceptions and experiences of maternity care. Our specific objective in this study was to test this adapted Framework in a series of focus groups with key stakeholders, and to compare findings between different groups. Findings related to service users (pregnant women and new mothers) are reported in our accompanying paper; this paper presents findings from focus groups with service providers (midwives and obstetricians), and then compares user and provider perspectives.

DESIGN

A qualitative comparative enquiry involving three focus groups with 26 midwives (eight newly qualified; eight working in a community midwifery unit; and ten senior tertiary-based) and two focus groups with twelve obstetricians of all grades. We used a six-phase thematic analysis to derive then compare the focus groups' principal sub-themes; we then mapped these to the original Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework and compared these service providers' responses with those from the pregnant women and new mothers.

SETTING

Two health boards in Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

Midwives and obstetricians who had experience of various models of maternity care.

FINDINGS

There were significant areas of overlap in their perceptions of providing maternity care. All groups reported 'limited resources and time'; the community midwifery unit and senior midwives and one group of obstetricians provided a critique of the system. Achieving tailored care was acknowledged as a problem by the senior midwives and one group of obstetricians. Only obstetricians discussed strategies for improvement. The newly qualified midwives were most positive in their responses. There was both overlap and contrast when comparing the views of service users and providers. We found most agreement when participants discussed some of the Framework's characteristics of care in negative terms, such as (in) accessible care, (lack of) adequate resources, and (absence of) tailored care.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Being able firstly to map the participants' responses to the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care Framework, and then to identify strengths and gaps in the provision of quality maternity care, suggests to us that the Framework, derived as it is from a comprehensive analysis of the global evidence on quality care, can indeed be used to inform an evaluation toolkit. While aware that we cannot generalise from this limited qualitative study, we are currently undertaking similar work in other countries by which we hope to confirm our findings and further develop the toolkit.

Cost-effectiveness of continuity of midwifery care for women with complex pregnancy: a structured review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Critical evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of continuity of midwifery care models for women experiencing complex pregnancy is an important consideration in the review and reform of maternity services. Most studies either focus on women who experience healthy pregnancy or mixed risk samples. These results may not be generalised across the childbearing continuum to women with risk factors. This review critically evaluates studies that measure the cost of care for women with complex pregnancies, with a focus on method and quality.

AIMS / OBJECTIVES

To critically appraise and summarise the evidence relating to the combined cost-effectiveness, resource use and clinical effectiveness of midwifery continuity models for women who experience complex pregnancies and their babies in developed countries.

DESIGN

Structured review of the literature utilising a matrix method to critique the methods and quality of studies.

METHOD

A search of Medline, CINAHL, MIDIRS, DARE, EMBASE, OVID, PubMed, ProQuest, Informit, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) for the years 1994 - 2018 was conducted.

RESULTS

Nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The review identified four areas of economic evaluation that related to women who experienced complex pregnancy and continuity of midwifery care. (1) cost and clinical effectiveness comparisons between continuity of midwifery care versus obstetric-led units; (2) cost of continuity of midwifery care and/or team midwifery compared to Standard Care; (3) cost-effectiveness of continuity of midwifery care for Australian Aboriginal women versus standard care; (4) patterns of antenatal care for women of high obstetric risk and comparative provider cost. Cost savings specific to women from high risk samples who received continuity of midwifery care compared with obstetric-led standard care was stated for only one study in the review. Kenny et al. 1994 identified cost savings of AUS $29 in the antenatal period for women who received the midwifery team model from a stratified sub-set of high-risk pregnant woman within a mixed risk sample of 446 women. One systematic review relevant to the UK context, Ryan et al. (2013), applied sensitivity analysis to include women of all risk categories. Where risk ratio for overall fetal/neonatal death was systematically varied based on the 95% confidence interval of 0.79 to 1.09 from pooled studies, the aggregate annual net monetary benefit for continuity of midwifery care ranged extremely widely from an estimated gain of £472 million to a loss of £202 million. Net health benefit ranged from an annual gain of 15 723 QALYs to a loss of 6 738 QALYs. All other studies in this review reported cost savings narratively or within mixed risk samples where risk stratification was not clearly stated or related to the midwifery team model only.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies that measure the cost of continuity of midwifery care for women with complex pregnancy across the childbearing continuum are limited and apply inconsistent methods of economic evaluation. The cost and outcomes of implementing continuity of midwifery care for women with complex pregnancy is an important issue that requires further investigation. Robust cost-effectiveness evidence is essential to inform decision makers, to implement sustainable systems change in comparative maternity models for pregnant women at risk and to address health inequity.

Exploring the Experiences and Perceptions of Women About Childbirth at Birthing Centers in Karachi, Pakistan

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of women about childbirth experiences at the birthing centers (BCs) in Karachi, Pakistan.

Design:

A qualitative descriptive exploratory approach was employed using semistructured interviews.

Participants:

A purposive sample of eight women who had used BCs was enrolled from each site.

Findings:

Five themes emerged from content analysis including: (a) satisfaction with BC, (b) provision of homely environment, (c) promotion of normalcy, (d) facilitation of family support, and (e) protection of privacy.

Key Conclusions:

Overall, the findings of the study revealed that women who used BCs were satisfied with the services and the environment provided to them by the midwives during the antenatal, intranatal, and postnatal periods. Most of the women appreciated the privacy offered at the BCs. They considered BCs as a safe, accessible, and affordable option for childbirth and encouraged others in the community to opt for it.

Implications for Practice:

The findings of this study may help to advocate for births at BCs and provide women-friendly maternity care, by giving choice and control to women during childbirth, providing comfort to women by using fewer medical interventions, and promoting normalcy by attending spontaneous vaginal delivery.

Comprehensive maternity support and shared care in Switzerland: Comparison of levels of satisfaction

BACKGROUND

According to the woman-centred care model, continuous care by a midwife has a positive impact on satisfaction. Comprehensive support is a model of team midwifery care implemented in the large Geneva University Hospitals in Switzerland, which has organised shared care according to the biomedical model of practice. This model of care insures a follow up by a specific group of midwives, during perinatal period.

AIM

The goal of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction and outcomes of the obstetric and neonatal care of women who received comprehensive support during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period, and compare them to women who received shared care.

METHODS

This was a prospective comparative study between two models of care in low risk pregnant women. The satisfaction and outcomes of care were evaluated using the French version of the Women's Experiences Maternity Care Scale, two months after giving birth.

FINDINGS

In total, 186 women in the comprehensive support group and 164 in the control group returned the questionnaire. After adjustment, the responses of those in the comprehensive support programme were strongly associated with optimal satisfaction, and they had a significantly lower epidural rate. No differences were observed between the two groups in the mode of delivery. The satisfaction relative to this support programme was associated with a birth plan for intrapartum and postnatal care.

CONCLUSIONS

Team midwifery had a positive impact on satisfaction, with no adverse effects on the obstetric and neonatal outcomes, when compared to shared care.

Midwife-led maternity care in Ireland - a retrospective cohort study

Background

Midwife-led maternity care is shown to be safe for women with low-risk during pregnancy. In Ireland, two midwife-led units (MLUs) were introduced in 2004 when a randomised controlled trial (the MidU study) was performed to compare MLU care with consultant-led care (CLU). Following study completion the two MLUs have remained as a maternity care option in Ireland. The aim of this study was to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes and transfer rates during six years in the larger of the MLU sites.

Methods

MLU data for the six years 2008–2013 were retrospectively analysed, following ethical approval. Rates of transfer, reasons for transfer, mode of birth, and maternal and fetal outcomes were assessed. Linear-by-Linear Association trend analysis was used for categorical data to evaluate trends over the years and one-way ANOVA was used when comparing continuous variables.

Results

During the study period, 3,884 women were registered at the MLU. The antenatal transfer rate was 37.4% and 2,410 women came to labour in the MLU. Throughout labour and birth, 567 women (14.6%) transferred to the CLU, of which 23 were transferred after birth due to need for suturing or postpartum hemorrhage. The most common reasons for intrapartum transfer were meconium stained liquor/abnormal fetal heart rate (30.3%), delayed labour progress in first or second stage (24.9%) and woman’s wish for epidural analgesia (15.1%). Of the 1,903 babies born in the MLU, 1,878 (98.7%) were spontaneous vaginal births and 25 (1.3%) were instrumental (ventouse/forceps). Only 25 babies (1.3%) were admitted to neonatal intensive care unit.

All spontaneous vaginal births from the MLU registered population, occurring in the study period in both the MLU and CLU settings (n = 2,785), were compared. In the MLU more often 1–2 midwives (90.9% vs 69.7%) cared for the women during birth, more women had three vaginal examinations or fewer (93.6% vs 79.9%) and gave birth in an upright position (standing, squatting or kneeling) (52.0% vs 9.4%), fewer women had an amniotomy (5.9% vs 25.9%) or episiotomy (3.4% vs 9.7%) and more women had a physiological management of third stage of labour (50.9% vs 4.6%).

Conclusions

Midwife-led care is a safe option that could be offered to a large proportion of healthy pregnant women. With strict transfer criteria there are very few complications during labour and birth. Maternity units without the option of MLU care should consider its introduction.

Antenatal care trial interventions: a systematic scoping review and taxonomy development of care models

BACKGROUND

Antenatal care models vary widely around the world, reflecting local contexts, drivers and resources. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the impact of multi-component antenatal care interventions on service delivery and outcomes in many countries since the 1980s. Some have applied entirely new schemes, while others have modified existing care delivery approaches. Systematic reviews (SRs) indicate that some specific antenatal interventions are more effective than others; however the causal mechanisms leading to better outcomes are poorly understood, limiting implementation and future research. As a first step in identifying what might be making the difference we conducted a scoping review of interventions tested in RCTs in order to establish a taxonomy of antenatal care models.

METHODS

A protocol-driven systematic search was undertaken of databases for RCTs and SRs reporting antenatal care interventions. Results were unrestricted by time or locality, but limited to English language. Key characteristics of both experimental and control interventions in the included trials were mapped using SPIO (Study design; Population; Intervention; Outcomes) criteria and the intervention and principal outcome measures were described. Commonalities and differences between the components that were being tested in each study were identified by consensus, resulting in a comprehensive description of emergent models for antenatal care interventions.

RESULTS

Of 13,050 articles retrieved, we identified 153 eligible articles including 130 RCTs in 34 countries. The interventions tested in these trials varied from the number of visits to the location of care provision, and from the content of care to the professional/lay group providing that care. In most studies neither intervention nor control arm was well described. Our analysis of the identified trials of antenatal care interventions produced the following taxonomy: Universal provision model (for all women irrespective of health state or complications); Restricted 'lower-risk'-based provision model (midwifery-led or reduced/flexible visit approach for healthy women); Augmented provision model (antenatal care as in Universal provision above but augmented by clinical, educational or behavioural intervention); Targeted 'higher-risk'-based provision model (for woman with defined clinical or socio-demographic risk factors). The first category was most commonly tested in low-income countries (i.e. resource-poor settings), particularly in Asia. The other categories were tested around the world. The trials included a range of care providers, including midwives, nurses, doctors, and lay workers.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions can be defined and described in many ways. The intended antenatal care population group proved the simplest and most clinically relevant way of distinguishing trials which might otherwise be categorised together. Since our review excluded non-trial interventions, the taxonomy does not represent antenatal care provision worldwide. It offers a stable and reproducible approach to describing the purpose and content of models of antenatal care which have been tested in a trial. It highlights a lack of reported detail of trial interventions and usual care processes. It provides a baseline for future work to examine and test the salient characteristics of the most effective models, and could also help decision-makers and service planners in planning implementation.

Evaluating a Midwife-Led Model of Antenatal Care for Women with a Previous Cesarean Section: A Retrospective, Comparative Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Research is yet to identify effective and safe interventions to increase the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rate. This research aimed to compare intended and actual VBAC rates before and after implementation of midwife-led antenatal care for women with one previous cesarean birth and no other risk factors in a large, tertiary maternity hospital in England.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, comparative cohort study. Data were collected from the medical records of women with one previous lower segment cesarean delivery and no other obstetric, medical, or psychological complications who gave birth at the hospital before (2008) and after (2011) the implementation of midwife-led antenatal care. Chi-squared analysis was used to calculate the odds ratio, and logistic regression to account for confounders.

RESULTS

Intended and actual VBAC rates were higher in 2011 compared with 2008: 90 percent vs. 77 percent, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.69 (1.48-4.87); and 61 percent vs. 47 percent, aOR 1.79 (1.17-2.75), respectively. Mean rates of unscheduled antenatal care sought via the delivery suite and inpatient admissions were lower in 2011 than 2008. Postnatal maternal and neonatal safety outcomes were similar between the two groups, except mean postnatal length of stay, which was shorter in 2011 compared with 2008 (2.67 vs. 3.15 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of midwife-led antenatal care for women with one previous cesarean offers a safe and effective alternative to traditional obstetrician-led antenatal care, and is associated with increased rates of intended and actual VBAC.

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women

BACKGROUND

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.

OBJECTIVES

To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women

BACKGROUND

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.

OBJECTIVES

To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e., regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = 8; high quality) and less overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = 4), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss/neonatal death before 24 weeks (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = 7), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = 3) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = 7). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss or neonatal death more than or equal to 24 weeks, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and overall fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

A cost-comparison of midwife-led compared with consultant-led maternity care in Ireland (the MidU study)

OBJECTIVE

to compare the cost of maternity care between two midwife-led units, and their linked consultant-led units, following a large randomised trial in Ireland.

DESIGN

ethical approval was received for this unblinded, pragmatic randomised trial (MidU) funded by the Health Service Executive (Dublin North-East, Ireland), conducted 2004-2009. A comparison of costs analysis was conducted on the outcomes from the trial.

SETTING

two maternity units in Ireland, with 'alongside' midwife-led units.

PARTICIPANTS

all women without risk factors for labour and birth who booked at the two maternity units before 24 weeks׳ gestation were assessed for inclusion. Consenting women (n=1653) were centrally randomised on a 2:1 ratio (1101:552) to midwife-led or consultant-led care.

INTERVENTIONS

women randomised to consultant-led care received standard care. Women randomised to the midwife-led arm received midwife-led care provided by a small group of midwives in two units, situated ׳alongside׳ the consultant-led units, throughout pregnancy, birth and postnatal.

MEASUREMENTS

mean difference in clinician salaries, cost of care based on managers׳ data, known costs of postnatal bed days and costs of key interventions were measured.

FINDINGS

the average cost of caring for a woman allocated to the midwife-led units was €2598, compared to €2780 in the consultant-led units (average difference €182 per woman, analysed by 'intention to treat').

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

care in these two midwife-led units costs less than care provided by the consultant-led units. Given the clinical findings, which showed that care provided in the midwife-led units is as safe as that in the consultant-led units and results in less intervention, more midwife-led units should be incorporated into maternity care in Ireland so that scarce resources can be used more effectively.

The efficient use of the maternity workforce and the implications for safety and quality in maternity care: a population-based, cross-sectional study

Background

The performance of maternity services is seen as a touchstone of whether or not we are delivering high-quality NHS care. Staffing has been identified in numerous reports as being a critical component of safe, effective, user-centred care. There is little evidence regarding the impact of maternity workforce staffing and skill mix on the safety, quality and cost of maternity care in the UK.

Objectives

To understand the relationship between organisational factors, maternity workforce staffing and skill mix, cost and indicators of safe and high-quality care.

Design and methods

Data included Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) from 143 NHS trusts in England in 2010–11 (656,969 delivery records), NHS Workforce Statistics, England, 2010–11, Care Quality Commission Maternity Survey of women’s experiences 2010 and NHS reference costs 2010/11. Ten indicators were derived from HES data. They included healthy mother and healthy baby outcomes and mode of birth. Adjustments were made for background characteristics and clinical risk. Data were analysed to examine the influence of organisational factors, staffing and costs using multilevel logistic regression models. A production function analysis examined the relationship between staffing, skill mix and output.

Results

Outcomes were largely determined by women’s level of clinical risk [based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance], parity and age. The effects of trust size and trust university status were small. Larger trust size reduced the chance of a healthy mother outcome and also reduced the likelihood of a healthy mother/healthy baby dyad outcome, and increased the chances of other childbirth interventions. Increased investment in staff did not necessarily have an effect on the outcome and experience measures chosen, although there was a higher rate of intact perineum and also of delivery with bodily integrity in trusts with greater levels of midwifery staffing. An analysis of the multiplicative effects of parity and clinical risk with the staffing variables was more revealing. Increasing the number of doctors had the greatest impact on outcomes in higher-risk women and increasing the number of midwives had the greatest impact on outcomes in lower-risk women. Although increased numbers of support workers impacted on reducing childbirth interventions in lower-risk women, they also had a negative impact on the healthy mother/healthy baby dyad outcomes in all women. In terms of maximising the capacity of a trust to deliver babies, midwives and support workers were found to be substitutes for each other, as were consultants and other doctors. However, any substitution between staff groups could impact on the quality of care given. Economically speaking, midwives are best used in combination with consultants and other doctors.

Conclusions

Staffing levels have positive and negative effects on some outcomes, and deployment of doctors and midwives where they have most beneficial impact is important. Managers may wish to exercise caution in increasing the number of support workers who care for higher-risk women. There also appear to be limited opportunities for role substitution.

Future work

Wide variations in outcomes remain after adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical risk, and organisational factors. Further research is required on what may be influencing unexplained variation such as organisational climate and culture, use of NICE guidelines in practice, variation of models of care within trusts and women’s choices.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care

In this first paper in a series of four papers on midwifery, we aimed to examine, comprehensively and systematically, the contribution midwifery can make to the quality of care of women and infants globally, and the role of midwives and others in providing midwifery care. Drawing on international definitions and current practice, we mapped the scope of midwifery. We then developed a framework for quality maternal and newborn care using a mixed-methods approach including synthesis of findings from systematic reviews of women's views and experiences, effective practices, and maternal and newborn care providers. The framework differentiates between what care is provided and how and by whom it is provided, and describes the care and services that childbearing women and newborn infants need in all settings. We identified more than 50 short-term, medium-term, and long-term outcomes that could be improved by care within the scope of midwifery; reduced maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, reduced stillbirth and preterm birth, decreased number of unnecessary interventions, and improved psychosocial and public health outcomes. Midwifery was associated with more efficient use of resources and improved outcomes when provided by midwives who were educated, trained, licensed, and regulated. Our findings support a system-level shift from maternal and newborn care focused on identification and treatment of pathology for the minority to skilled care for all. This change includes preventive and supportive care that works to strengthen women's capabilities in the context of respectful relationships, is tailored to their needs, focuses on promotion of normal reproductive processes, and in which first-line management of complications and accessible emergency treatment are provided when needed. Midwifery is pivotal to this approach, which requires effective interdisciplinary teamwork and integration across facility and community settings. Future planning for maternal and newborn care systems can benefit from using the quality framework in planning workforce development and resource allocation.

A comparison of frequency of medical interventions and birth outcomes between the midwife led unit and the obstetric unit in low-risk primiparous women

Introduction: The purpose of this national research was to compare birth, maternal and newborn outcomes in the midwife led unit and the obstetric unit to ascertain whether a midwife led unit reduced medicalisation of childbirth. Methods: A prospective observational case-control study was carried out in Ljubljana Maternity Hospital in the period May - August 2013. The sample comprised 497 labouring women; 154 who attended the midwife led and 343 who attended in the obstetric unit, both matching the same inclusion criteria: low risk primiparous; singleton term pregnancies, normal foetal heart beat, cephalic presentation; spontaneous onset of labour. The primary outcome was the caesarean section rate. Chi-square test was used to compare medical interventions and birth outcomes. Results: Women in the midwife led unit had statistically significant higher spontaneous vaginal births (p < 0.001), less augmentation with oxytocin (p < 0.001), less use of analgesia (p < 0.001), less operative vaginal deliveries (p < 0.001) and less caesarean sections (p < 0.001), lower rates of episiotomy (p < 0.001) and more exclusively breastfed (p = 0.002). Discussion and conclusion: These significant findings showed that in the midwife led unit fewer medical interventions were used. For generalisation of the findings more similar studies in Slovenia are needed.

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women

BACKGROUND

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.

OBJECTIVES

To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 January 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors evaluated methodological quality. Two review authors checked data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 16,242 women. Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.90), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92), and instrumental birth (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96), and were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.08), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.83, 95% CI 4.15 to 14.80), and a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (hours) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births (average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02).Women who were randomised to receive midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience preterm birth (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94) and fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99), although there were no differences in fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.51) or in overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in the midwifery-led continuity care model. Similarly there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most women should be offered midwife-led continuity models of care and women should be encouraged to ask for this option although caution should be exercised in applying this advice to women with substantial medical or obstetric complications.