Continuity of midwifery care and gestational weight gain in obese women: a randomised controlled trial

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All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.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

Prevalence of gestational diabetes and its association with stillbirth, preterm birth, macrosomia, abortion and cesarean delivery: a national prevalence study of 11 provinces in Iran

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most common metabolic disorders during pregnancy that significantly affects perinatal outcomes.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of GDM and its relation with the incidence of stillbirth, preterm birth, macrosomia, abortion and cesarean section (C-section) delivery in pregnant women.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 3675 pregnant women in 11 provinces across Iran. Cluster sampling was used to select samples from mothers covered by health plans in 11 provinces of Iran. Prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery, type of delivery, macrosomic preterm birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, infant death, and birth weight were measured, using family record and face-to-face interviews. Data were analyzed by logistic regression, using STATA14.2 software.

Results

About four percent of Iranian pregnant women had GDM during pregnancy. Prevalence of C-section was significantly higher in diabetic women than in the non-diabetic ones (53.19 vs 46.81, respectively, P < 0.001). Abortion in diabetic mothers was more than twice that of the non-diabetic mothers (P < 0.001). In the adjusted logistic regression model, the odds of stillbirth in mothers with GDM were 1.8 (95% CI: 1.11, 2.91, P = 0.018) times higher than that of the non-diabetics. The odds of macrosomia in diabetic women was about 7 times higher than the non-diabetic women (95% CI: 2.81, 17.14, P < 0.001). The odds of GDM had an increasing trend according to the BMI (p < 0.001). The risk of GDM were significantly lower, according to the daily physical activity (PA) (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The GDM prevalence has a decreasing trend in Iran. It increases the adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth, neonatal deaths, macrosomia, preterm birth, abortion and C-section delivery. As, some of these consequences like macrosomia are not treatable, thus early prevention is very crucial.

Supporting women of childbearing age in the prevention and treatment of overweight and obesity: a scoping review of randomized control trials of behavioral interventions

BACKGROUND

Women of childbearing age are vulnerable to weight gain. This scoping review examines the extent and range of research undertaken to evaluate behavioral interventions to support women of childbearing age to prevent and treat overweight and obesity.

METHODS

Eight electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) or systematic reviews of RCTs until 31st January 2018. Eligible studies included women of childbearing age (aged 15-44 years), evaluated interventions promoting behavior change related to diet or physical activity to achieve weight gain prevention, weight loss or maintenance and reported weight-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Ninety studies met the inclusion criteria (87 RCTs, 3 systematic reviews). Included studies were published from 1998 to 2018. The studies primarily focused on preventing excessive gestational weight gain (n = 46 RCTs, n = 2 systematic reviews), preventing postpartum weight retention (n = 18 RCTs) or a combination of the two (n = 14 RCTs, n = 1 systematic review). The RCTs predominantly evaluated interventions that aimed to change both diet and physical activity behaviors (n = 84) and were delivered in-person (n = 85).

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified an increasing volume of research over time undertaken to support women of childbearing age to prevent and treat overweight and obesity. It highlights, however, that little research is being undertaken to support the young adult female population unrelated to pregnancy or preconception.

Estimation of gestational diabetes mellitus and dose-response association of BMI with the occurrence of diabetes mellitus in pregnant women of the west of Iran

The authors aim to investigate the GDM and the dose-response association of BMI with it in pregnant women in Kermanshah, Iran. During the 2015-2016 year, the 1010 pregnant women were studied. The restricted cubic spline method was used to evaluate the relationship between BMI and GDM. The risk of GDM was 10.1%. The incidence rate ratio for GDM indicates a non-significant protective effect and, then a significant risk for GDM occurrence along with BMI. BMI can be used as a predictive factor. A healthy diet and recommended levels of physical activity are suggested to prevent overweight and obesity and subsequent GDM.

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.

Diet or exercise, or both, for preventing excessive weight gain in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2012, Issue 4. Excessive weight gain during pregnancy is associated with poor maternal and neonatal outcomes including gestational diabetes, hypertension, caesarean section, macrosomia, and stillbirth. Diet or exercise interventions, or both, may reduce excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) and associated poor outcomes; however, evidence from the original review was inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of diet or exercise, or both, interventions for preventing excessive weight gain during pregnancy and associated pregnancy complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (5 November 2014), contacted investigators of the previously identified ongoing studies and scanned reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet or exercise, or both, interventions for preventing excessive weight gain in pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We organised RCTs according to the type of interventions and pooled data using the random-effects model in the Review Manager software. We also performed subgroup analyses according to the initial risk of adverse effects related to poor weight control. We performed sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of the findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 65 RCTs, out of which 49 RCTs involving 11,444 women contributed data to quantitative meta-analysis. Twenty studies were at moderate-to-high risk of bias. Study interventions involved mainly diet only, exercise only, and combined diet and exercise interventions, usually compared with standard care. Study methods varied widely; therefore, we estimated the average effect across studies and performed sensitivity analysis, where appropriate, by excluding outliers and studies at high risk of bias.Diet or exercise, or both, interventions reduced the risk of excessive GWG on average by 20% overall (average risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.87; participants = 7096; studies = 24; I² = 52%). This estimate was robust to sensitivity analysis, which reduced heterogeneity, therefore we graded this evidence as high-quality. Interventions involving low glycaemic load diets, supervised or unsupervised exercise only, or diet and exercise combined all led to similar reductions in the number of women gaining excessive weight in pregnancy.Women receiving diet or exercise, or both interventions were more likely to experience low GWG than those in control groups (average RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; participants = 4422; studies = 11; I² = 3%; moderate-quality evidence). We found no difference between intervention and control groups with regard to pre-eclampsia (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.16; participants = 5330; studies = 15; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence); however, maternal hypertension (not a pre-specified outcome) was reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group overall (average RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; participants = 5162; studies = 11; I² = 43%; low-quality evidence).There was no clear difference between groups with regard to caesarean delivery overall (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; participants = 7534; studies = 28; I² = 9%; high-quality evidence); although the effect estimate suggested a small difference (5%) in favour of the interventions. In addition, for combined diet and exercise counselling interventions there was a 13% (-1% to 25%) reduction in this outcome (borderline statistical significance).We found no difference between groups with regard to preterm birth overall (average RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.22; participants = 5923; studies = 16; I² = 16%; moderate-quality evidence); however limited evidence suggested that these effect estimates may differ according to the types of interventions, with a trend towards an increased risk for exercise-only interventions.We found no clear difference between intervention and control groups with regard to infant macrosomia (average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02; participants = 8598; studies = 27; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence), although the effect estimate suggested a small difference (7% reduction) in favour of the intervention group. The largest effect size occurred in the supervised exercise-only intervention group (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.02; participants = 2445; studies = 7; I² = 0%), which approached statistical significance (P = 0.07). Furthermore, in subgroup analysis by risk, high-risk women (overweight or obese women, or women with or at risk of gestational diabetes) receiving combined diet and exercise counselling interventions experienced a 15% reduced risk of infant macrosomia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.00; participants = 3252; studies = nine; I² = 0; P = 0.05; moderate-quality evidence)There were no differences in the risk of poor neonatal outcomes including shoulder dystocia, neonatal hypoglycaemia, hyperbilirubinaemia, or birth trauma (all moderate-quality evidence) between intervention and control groups; however, infants of high-risk women had a reduced risk of respiratory distress syndrome if their mothers were in the intervention group (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.85; participants = 2256; studies = two; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence indicates that diet or exercise, or both, during pregnancy can reduce the risk of excessive GWG. Other benefits may include a lower risk of caesarean delivery, macrosomia, and neonatal respiratory morbidity, particularly for high-risk women receiving combined diet and exercise interventions. Maternal hypertension may also be reduced. Exercise appears to be an important part of controlling weight gain in pregnancy and more research is needed to establish safe guidelines. Most included studies were carried out in developed countries and it is not clear whether these results are widely applicable to lower income settings.

Preventing maternal and early childhood obesity: the fetal flaw in Australian perinatal care

Almost half of Australian women of child-bearing age are overweight or obese, with a rate of 30-50% reported in early pregnancy. Maternal adiposity is a costly challenge for Australian obstetric care, with associated serious maternal and neonatal complications. Excess gestational weight gain is an important predictor of offspring adiposity into adulthood and higher maternal weight later in life. Current public health and perinatal care approaches in Australia do not adequately address excess perinatal maternal weight or gestational weight gain. This paper argues that the failure of primary health-care providers to offer systematic advice and support regarding women's weight and related lifestyle behaviours in child-bearing years is an outstanding 'missed opportunity' for prevention of inter-generational overweight and obesity. Barriers to action could be addressed through greater attention to: clinical guidelines for maternal weight management for the perinatal period, training and support of maternal health-care providers to develop skills and confidence in raising weight issues with women, a variety of weight management programs provided by state maternal health services, and clear referral pathways to them. Attention is also required to service systems that clearly define roles in maternal weight management and ensure consistency and continuity of support across the perinatal period.

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.

Antenatal interventions for reducing weight in obese women for improving pregnancy outcome

BACKGROUND

Being obese and pregnant is associated with substantial risks for the mother and her child. Current weight management guidance for obese pregnant women is limited. The latest recommendations suggest that obese pregnant women should gain between 5.0 and 9.1 kg during the pregnancy period, and weight loss is discouraged. However, observational studies indicate that some obese pregnant women, especially those who are heavier, lose weight during pregnancy. Furthermore, some obese pregnant women may intentionally lose weight. The safety of weight loss when pregnant and obese is not substantiated; some observational studies suggest that risks associated with weight loss such as pre-eclampsia are improved, but others indicate that the incidence of small- for-gestational infants are increased. It is important to evaluate interventions that are designed to reduce weight in obese pregnant women so that the safety of weight loss during this period can be established.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions that reduce weight in obese pregnant women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2012) and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, 'quasi-random' studies and cluster-randomised trials comparing a weight-loss intervention with routine care or more than one weight loss intervention. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no trials designed to reduce weight in obese pregnant women. Until the safety of weight loss in obese pregnant women can be established, there can be no practice recommendations for these women to intentionally lose weight during the pregnancy period. Further study is required to explore the potential benefits, or harm, of weight loss in pregnancy when obese before weight loss interventions in pregnancy can be designed. Qualitative research is also required to explore dietary habits of obese pregnant women, especially those who are morbidly obese.

Perinatal outcomes and satisfaction with care in women with high body mass index

INTRODUCTION

The majority of studies on pregnant women with high body mass index (BMI) have focused on medical complications and birth outcome, rather than these women's encounters with health care providers. The aims were to identify the proportion of pregnant women with high BMIs (≥30); compare maternal characteristics and pregnancy and birth outcomes; and assess the experiences of prenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care in women with high (≥30) and lower (<30) BMIs.

METHODS

Data were collected through questionnaires and antenatal records from 919 women recruited in mid-pregnancy at 3 hospitals in the north of Sweden, with a follow-up questionnaire 2 months after birth.

RESULTS

The prevalence of obesity was 15.2%. Women with high BMIs were more often aged 35 years or older and less likely to have a university education. They had more negative attitudes regarding being pregnant and reported more childbirth fear compared to women with lower BMIs, but they did not differ in regard to their feelings about the approaching birth or the first weeks with the newborn. They reported more pregnancy complications and had less continuity of caregiver. High BMI was associated with labor induction and emergency cesarean birth. No differences were found in birth complications; birth experience; or satisfaction with prenatal, intrapartum, or postnatal care.

DISCUSSION

The findings reveal that women who are obese have more complicated pregnancies and births but are generally satisfied with the care they receive. There are some differences in the way they experience care. Health care providers have a delicate task to provide sufficient information about health risks while still offering respect, encouragement, and support.

Interventions for preventing excessive weight gain during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Excessive weight gain during pregnancy is associated with multiple maternal and neonatal complications. However, interventions to prevent excessive weight gain during pregnancy have not been adequately evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for preventing excessive weight gain during pregnancy and associated pregnancy complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 October 2011) and MEDLINE (1966 to 20 October 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials of interventions for preventing excessive weight gain during pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed for inclusion all potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We have presented results using risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference for continuous data. We analysed data using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies involving 3976 women; 27 of these studies with 3964 women contributed data to the analyses. Interventions focused on a broad range of interventions. However, for most outcomes we could not combine data in a meta-analysis, and where we did pool data, no more than two or three studies could be combined for a particular intervention and outcome. Overall, results from this review were mainly not statistically significant, and where there did appear to be differences between intervention and control groups, results were not consistent. For women in general clinic populations one (behavioural counselling versus standard care) of three interventions examined was associated with a reduction in the rate of excessive weight gain (RR 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.95); for women in high-risk groups no intervention appeared to reduce excess weight gain. There were inconsistent results for mean weight gain (reported in all but one of the included studies). We found a statistically significant effect on mean weight gain for five interventions in the general population and for two interventions in high-risk groups.Most studies did not show statistically significant effects on maternal complications, and none reported significant effects on adverse neonatal outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is not enough evidence to recommend any intervention for preventing excessive weight gain during pregnancy, due to the significant methodological limitations of included studies and the small observed effect sizes. More high-quality randomised controlled trials with adequate sample sizes are required to evaluate the effectiveness of potential interventions.