Experiences of maternity care among women at increased risk of preterm birth receiving midwifery continuity of care compared to women receiving standard care: Results from the POPPIE pilot trial

"A safe space"; A statewide evaluation of Midwifery Antenatal and Postnatal Service (MAPS) using the quality maternal newborn care, evidence informed framework

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization recommends Midwifery Continuity of Care (MCoC) due to the consistent improvements in outcomes for mothers and babies. Surveys from the United Kingdom and Australia reported large numbers of midwives are unable to commit to the on call component required to provide MCoC across the continuum. To address this challenge a modified MCoC model called Midwifery Antenatal and Postnatal Services (MAPS) has been introduced. The aim of this study was to evaluate MAPS services in six sites across one State in Australia.

METHODS

A multi-site qualitative descriptive study was undertaken framed by the Quality Maternal Newborn Care (QMNC) Framework. The QMNC framework was used to develop focus group questions for data collection, and as a lens for analysing data. Data were collected via focus groups from midwives and women at six sites ranging from metropolitan to regional and rural settings and thematically analysed.

FINDINGS

Participants (n=80) included women (n=28), midwives (n=44) and MAPS managers (n=8). This paper reports the findings from the women and midwives, presented under three themes: Getting onto the program, Knowing the story and Building confidence by sharing information. Each theme had subthemes and the findings were aligned either positively or negatively with the QMNC framework.

CONCLUSION

This study found the MAPS model aligns in positive ways with the QMNC quality care framework with some recommendations to improve quality care. Midwives want to provide continuity of care and MAPS is a useful model for providing continuity through the antenatal and postnatal periods.

Midwifery continuity of care for women with perinatal mental health conditions: A cohort study from Australia

BACKGROUND

Perinatal mental health (PMH) conditions are associated with adverse outcomes such as maternal suicide, preterm birth and longer-term childhood sequelae. Midwifery continuity of care (one midwife or a small group of midwives) has demonstrated benefits for women and newborns, including a reduction in preterm birth and improvements in maternal anxiety/worry and depression.

AIM

To determine if midwifery care provided through a Midwifery Group Caseload Practice model is associated with improved perinatal outcomes for women who have anxiety and depression and/or other perinatal mental health conditions. An EPDS ≥ 13, and/or answered the thought of harming myself has occurred to me and/or women who self-reported a history compared to standard models of care (mixed midwife/obstetric fragmented care).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using data routinely collected via an electronic database between 1 January 2018 31st of January 2021. The population were women with current/history of PMH, who received Midwifery Caseload Group Practice (MCP), or standard care (SC). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics for maternal characteristics and logistic regression for birth outcomes. One-to-one matching of the MCP group with the SC group was based on propensity scores.

RESULTS

7,359 births were included MCP 12% and SC 88%. Anxiety was the most common PMH with the same proportion affected in MCP and SC. Adjusted odds of preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes were lower in the MCP group than the SC group (aOR (95%CI): 0.77 (0.55, 1.08) and 0.81 (0.68, 0.97), respectively) and higher for vaginal birth and full breastfeeding (aOR (95% CI): 1.87 (1.60, 2.18) and 2.06 (1.61, 2.63), respectively). In the matched sample the estimate of a relationship between MCP and preterm birth (aOR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.56, 1.42), adverse perinatal outcomes (aOR (95% CI): 0.83 (0.67, 1.05)) and breastfeeding at discharge (aOR (95% CI): 1.82 (1.30, 2.51)), stronger for vaginal birth (aOR (95% CI): 2.22 (1.77, 2.71)).

CONCLUSION

This study supports positive associations between MCP and breastfeeding and vaginal birth. MCP was also associated with lower risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, though in the matched sample with a smaller sample size, the confidence interval included 1. The direction of the association MCP and preterm birth was negative (protective). However, in the matched sample analysis, the confidence interval was wide, and the finding was also consistent with no benefit from MCP. Randomised controlled trials are required to answer questions around preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes and further research is being planned.

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.

Midwifery group practice workforce in Australia: A cross-sectional survey of midwives and managers

BACKGROUND

Despite robust evidence on the benefits of midwifery group practice (MGP), there remains difficulties with implementing and sustaining the model. However, contemporary data on the MGP workforce and how each model has been operationalised are limited. This constrains an understanding of the factors that help or hinder implementation and sustainability of MGP.

AIM

To describe the characteristics of Australian MGPs and the factors that help or hinder sustainability.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional survey was undertaken in Australia between March 2021 and July 2022, inclusive. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive analysis while qualitative data were analysed using content analysis.

FINDINGS

Of 669 survey responses, 579 were midwives and 90 were managers. The mean years of experience for clinical midwives was eight years, and 47.8% (almost twice the national average) completed a Bachelor of Midwifery (BMid). Half (50.2%) the models provided care for women of all risk. Midwives resigned from MGP because of the MGP work conditions (30%) and how the service was managed or supported (12.7%). Managers resigned from MGP because of role changes, conflict with their manager, and limited support. Almost half (42.6%) of MGP managers also managed other areas, leading to heavy workloads, competing demands, and burnout.

CONCLUSION

The BMid appears to be a common educational pathway for MGP midwives, and many MGP services are providing care to women with complexities. Flexible practice agreements, organisational support and appropriate workloads are vital for recruitment, retention, and sustainability of MGP.

The Climate Crisis and Breastfeeding: Opportunities for Resilience

The climate crisis is an emerging global challenge that poses potential risks to breastfeeding practices and outcomes. There are multifaceted effects of climate change affecting the breastfeeding dyad across environmental, societal, and human health dimensions. Breastfeeding support in the face of climate change will require solutions at the structural level-healthcare, community, and workplace settings-and at the mother-infant dyad level. Breastfeeding can additionally be an adaptive response to crisis situations and can mitigate some of the environmental challenges associated with climate change. Despite the undeniable significance of climate change on breastfeeding (and vice versa), our perspective as experts in the field is that this topic has not been systematically addressed. Although we highlight some of the challenges, potential solutions, and co-benefits of breastfeeding in the context of climate change, there are numerous issues that could be further explored and necessitate additional preparedness planning.

Perinatal outcomes of socially disadvantaged women in Australia: A population-based retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the perinatal outcomes of women who experience social disadvantage using population-based perinatal data collected between 1999 and 2016.

DESIGN

Population-based, retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Victoria, Australia.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

A total of 1 188 872 singleton births were included.

METHODS

Cohort study using routinely collected perinatal data. Multiple logistic regression was performed to determine associations between social disadvantage and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes with confidence limits set at 99%. Time-trend analysis for perinatal outcomes was performed in relation to area-level disadvantage measures.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of maternal admission to intensive care unit (ICU), postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and caesarean section, perinatal mortality, preterm birth, low birthweight (LBW), and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (SCN/NICU).

RESULTS

Social disadvantage was associated with higher odds of adverse perinatal outcomes. Disadvantaged women were more likely to be admitted to ICU, have a PPH or experience perinatal mortality (stillbirth or neonatal death) and their neonates were more likely to be admitted to SCN/NICU, be born preterm and be LBW. A persistent social gradient existed across time for the most disadvantaged women for all outcomes except caesarean section.

CONCLUSIONS

Social disadvantage has a marked negative impact on perinatal outcomes. This aligns with national and international evidence regarding the impact of disadvantage. Strategies that improve access to, and reduce fragmentation in, maternity care in addition to initiatives that address the social determinants of health may contribute to improving perinatal outcomes for socially disadvantaged women.

Child and maternal benefits and risks of caseload midwifery - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that caseload midwifery, which implies continuity of midwifery care during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period, improves the outcomes for the mother and child. The aim of this study was to review benefits and risks of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care comparable to the Swedish setting where the same midwife usually provides antenatal care and the checkup postnatally, but does not assist during birth and the first week postpartum.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library were searched (Nov 4th, 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Retrieved articles were assessed and pooled risk ratios calculated when possible, using random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.

RESULTS

In all, 7,594 patients in eight RCTs were included, whereof five RCTs without major risk of bias, including 5,583 patients, formed the basis for the conclusions. There was moderate certainty of evidence for little or no difference regarding the risk of Apgar ≤ 7 at 5 min, instrumental birth, and preterm birth. There was low certainty of evidence for little or no difference regarding the risk of perinatal mortality, neonatal intensive care, perineal tear, bleeding, and acute caesarean section. Caseload midwifery may reduce the overall risk of caesarean section. Regarding breastfeeding after hospital discharge, maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, health-related quality of life, postpartum depression, health care experience/satisfaction and confidence, available studies did not allow conclusions (very low certainty of evidence). For severe child morbidity and Apgar ≤ 4 at 5 min, there was no literature available.

CONCLUSIONS

When caseload midwifery was compared with models of care that resembles the Swedish one, little or no difference was found for several critical and important child and maternal outcomes with low-moderate certainty of evidence, but the risk of caesarean section may be reduced. For several outcomes, including critical and important ones, studies were lacking, or the certainty of evidence was very low. RCTs in relevant settings are therefore required.

Midwifery Workforce Density Moderates the Association Between Independent Practice and Pregnancy Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Studies comparing pregnancy outcomes before and after state transition to independent midwifery practice have found little change in primary cesarean birth and preterm birth rates. One reason may be the failure to control for midwife density. The objective was to test if the local midwife density moderates the association between state independent midwifery practice and pregnancy outcomes.

METHODS

Birth records were abstracted from the State Inpatient Databases for 6 states. The Area Health Resource File provided county variables. Midwife density was operationalized as no midwives, low midwife density (<4.5 per 1000 births), and high midwife density (≥4.5 midwives per 1000 births). Multivariate logistic regression models compared primary cesarean birth and preterm birth, controlling for maternal and county characteristics. Moderation was tested by including an interaction term (independent practice × density) to the regression models. The magnitude of association for the interaction was measured by stratifying the models.

RESULTS

The study included 875,156 women; most (79.7%) resided in a county with low midwife density. Restricted midwifery practice was associated with increased odds of both primary cesarean birth and preterm birth. The interaction term was significant for both preterm birth and primary cesarean, indicating moderation. The largest magnitude of difference was the increased odds of preterm birth in counties with a high midwife density and restricted practice (odds ratio, 3.50; 95% CI, 2.43-5.06) compared with those with high midwife density and independent practice.

DISCUSSION

Midwife density moderates the association between independent midwifery practice and primary cesarean birth and preterm birth. Moderation may explain why prior studies found small or no changes in outcomes when states adopted independent practice. Moderation models can improve testing for associations with independent practice. Both midwife independent practice and increasing midwifery workforce size can be strategies to improve state pregnancy outcomes.

"She was there all the time". A qualitative study exploring how women at higher risk for preterm birth experience midwifery continuity of care

PROBLEM

There is a paucity of research on experiences and views of women at higher risk of preterm birth of midwifery continuity of care.

BACKGROUND

Midwifery continuity of care (MCoC) has been associated with improved maternal outcomes and with lower levels of preterm births and stillbirths. The majority of MCoC studies have focused on women without risk factors and little has been published on women with obstetric complexities. The aim of this study is to explore the views and experiences of women identified as a higher risk of preterm birth who have had continuity of care from midwives.

DESIGN

Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with 16 women identified as at increased risk of preterm birth and experienced continuity of midwifery care across pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period. Care had been provided by the pilot intervention group for the pilot study of midwifery practice in preterm birth including women's experiences (POPPIE) trial.

FINDINGS

Women valued continuity of midwifery care across the care pathway and described the reassurance provided by having 24 h a day, seven days a week access to known midwives. Consistency of care, advocacy and accessibility to the team were described as the main factors contributing to their feelings of safety and control.

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Recognising that known midwives were 'there all the time' made women feel listened to and actively involved in clinical decision making, which contributed to women feeling less stressed and anxious during their pregnancy, birth and early parenthood. When developing MCoC models for women with obstetric complexities: access, advocacy and time should be embedded to ensure women can build trusting relationships and reduce anxiety levels.

A continuity of care programme for women at risk of preterm birth in the UK: Process evaluation of a hybrid randomised controlled pilot trial

BACKGROUND

The development and evaluation of specific maternity care packages designed to address preterm birth remains a public health priority. We aim to evaluate the implementation, context, and potential mechanisms of action, of a new care pathway that combined midwifery continuity of care with a specialist obstetric clinic for women at risk of preterm birth (POPPIE) in London (UK).

METHODS

We did a multiphase mixed method triangulation evaluation nested within a hybrid type 2, randomised controlled trial in London (United Kingdom). Pregnant women with identified risk factors for preterm birth were eligible for trial participation and randomly assigned (1:1) to either midwifery continuity of care linked to a specialist obstetric clinic (POPPIE group) or standard maternity care. The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate and timely interventions for the prevention and/or management of preterm labour and birth, analysed according to intention to treat. Clinical and process outcome data were abstracted from medical records and electronic data systems, and coded by study team members, who were masked to study group allocation. Implementation data were collected from meeting records and key documents, postnatal surveys (n = 164), semi-structured interviews with women (n = 30), healthcare providers and stakeholders (n = 24) pre-, mid and post implementation. Qualitative and quantitative data from meeting records and key documents were examined narratively. Qualitative data from interviews were analysed using three thematic frameworks: Proctor's (for implementation outcomes: appropriateness, adoption, feasibility, acceptability, fidelity, penetration, sustainability), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (for determinants of implementation), and published program theories of continuity models (for potential mechanisms). Data triangulation followed a convergent parallel and pragmatic approach which brought quantitative and qualitative data together at the interpretation stage. We averaged individual implementation measures across all domains to give a single composite implementation strength score which was compared to the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Between May 9, 2017, and Sep 30, 2018, 553 women were assessed for eligibility and 334 were enrolled with less than 6% of loss to follow up (169 were assigned to the POPPIE group; 165 were to the standard group). There was no difference in the primary outcome (POPPIE group 83·3% versus standard group 84·7%; risk ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·90 to 1·08]). Appropriateness and adoption: The introduction of the POPPIE model was perceived as a positive fundamental change for local maternity services. Partnership working and additional funding were crucial for adoption. Fidelity: More than 75% of antenatal and postnatal visits were provided by a named or partner midwife, and a POPPIE midwife was present in more than 80% of births. Acceptability: Nearly 98% of women who responded to the postnatal survey were very satisfied with POPPIE model. Quantitative fidelity and acceptability results were supported by the qualitative findings. Penetration and sustainability: Despite delays (likely associated with lack of existing continuity models at the hospital), the model was embedded within established services and a joint decision was made to sustain and adapt the model after the trial (strongly facilitated by national maternal policy on continuity pathways). Potential mechanisms of impact identified included e.g. access to care, advocacy and perceptions of safety and trust. There was no association between implementation measures and the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The POPPIE model of care was a feasible and acceptable model of care that was implemented with high fidelity and sustained in maternity services. Larger powered trials are feasible and needed in other settings, to evaluate the impact and implementation of continuity programmes in other communities affected by preterm birth and women who experience social disadvantage and vulnerability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UKCRN Portfolio Database (prospectively registered, 24 April 2017): 31951. ISRCTN registry (retrospectively registered, 21 August 2017): ISRCTN37733900.

Midwifery Continuity of Care in Indonesia: Initiation of Mobile Health Development Integrating Midwives' Competency and Service Needs

Midwives' competence in providing continuity of care using mobile health (mHealth) applications is limited in developing countries. This study identified and explored midwives' competency and service needs to develop mHealth in Midwifery Continuity of Care (MCOC) education and training. It used an explanatory sequential mixed method, and was conducted from August to December 2021. A cross-sectional approach was used to find the characteristics and competency scope of 373 midwives in West Java, and continued with a qualitative design through a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) of 13 midwives. Descriptive data analysis (frequency, mean, deviation standard) and qualitative data analysis (coding, sub-themes, and theme) were conducted. In terms of the midwives who participated in this study, more than half were aged ≤ 35 years (58.98%), with a working period > 10 years (56.30%), had diploma degrees (71.12%), and used smartphones on average 1-12 h/day (78.28%). Most midwives needed to develop competency in the MCOC scope, including its early detection of the risk factor of complications and treatment management. They were concerned about the purposes, benefits, and design of mHealth. In summary, midwives' competency indicators for early detection are more needed in MCOC using mHealth. Further research is required to evaluate midwives' competence in MCOC using mHealth.

Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?

Systems of care that provide midwifery care and services through a continuity of care model have positive health outcomes for women and newborns. We conducted a scoping review to understand the global implementation of these models, asking the questions: where, how, by whom and for whom are midwifery continuity of care models implemented? Using a scoping review framework, we searched electronic and grey literature databases for reports in any language between January 2012 and January 2022, which described current and recent trials, implementation or scaling-up of midwifery continuity of care studies or initiatives in high-, middle- and low-income countries. After screening, 175 reports were included, the majority (157, 90%) from high-income countries (HICs) and fewer (18, 10%) from low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). There were 163 unique studies including eight (4.9%) randomised or quasi-randomised trials, 58 (38.5%) qualitative, 53 (32.7%) quantitative (cohort, cross sectional, descriptive, observational), 31 (19.0%) survey studies, and three (1.9%) health economics analyses. There were 10 practice-based accounts that did not include research. Midwives led almost all continuity of care models. In HICs, the most dominant model was where small groups of midwives provided care for designated women, across the antenatal, childbirth and postnatal care continuum. This was mostly known as caseload midwifery or midwifery group practice. There was more diversity of models in low- to middle-income countries. Of the 175 initiatives described, 31 (18%) were implemented for women, newborns and families from priority or vulnerable communities. With the exception of New Zealand, no countries have managed to scale-up continuity of midwifery care at a national level. Further implementation studies are needed to support countries planning to transition to midwifery continuity of care models in all countries to determine optimal model types and strategies to achieve sustainable scale-up at a national level.

Effects of a Midwife-Coordinated Maternity Care Intervention (ChroPreg) vs. Standard Care in Pregnant Women with Chronic Medical Conditions: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial

The proportion of childbearing women with pre-existing chronic medical conditions (CMC) is rising. In a randomized controlled trial, we aimed to evaluate the effects of a midwife-coordinated maternity care intervention (ChroPreg) in pregnant women with CMC. The intervention consisted of three main components: (1) Midwife-coordinated and individualized care, (2) Additional ante-and postpartum consultations, and (3) Specialized known midwives. The primary outcome was the total length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes measuring psychological well-being and satisfaction with maternity care, health utilization, and maternal and infant outcomes. A total of 362 women were randomized to the ChroPreg intervention (n = 131) or Standard Care (n = 131). No differences in LOS were found between groups (median 3.0 days, ChroPreg group 0.1% lower LOS, 95% CI −7.8 to 7%, p = 0.97). Women in the ChroPreg group reported being more satisfied with maternity care measured by the Pregnancy and Childbirth Questionnaire (PCQ) compared with the Standard Care group (mean PCQ 104.5 vs. 98.2, mean difference 6.3, 95% CI 3.0–10.0, p < 0.0001). In conclusion, the ChroPreg intervention did not reduce LOS. However, women in the ChroPreg group were more satisfied with maternity care.