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

Models of care for pregnant women with multiple long-term conditions and the role of the midwife: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

More women are experiencing pregnancy with two or more long-term health conditions such as hypertension, depression or HIV (MLTC). Care can be complex and include multiple teams, health professionals and services. The type and range of maternity care models for these women and the role of the midwife within such models is unknown.

AIM

To provide an overview of the literature on models of care for pregnant, birthing, and postnatal women with MLTC and the role of the midwife.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Five databases MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, EMBASE and The Maternity and Infant Care database were searched from inception until August 2022. A total of 3458 titles and abstracts and 56 full text papers were screened independently by two researchers. Data was extracted from five papers and synthesised narratively.

FINDINGS

Multidisciplinary care models are described or recommended in all five papers. Midwives have a varied and core role in the multidisciplinary care of women with MLTC.

DISCUSSION

Models of care for those with MLTC covered part or all the maternity journey, primarily antenatal and postnatal care. A focus on delivering high-quality holistic care throughout the maternity journey, including postnatally is needed. There is a lack of evidence on how midwifery continuity of care models may impact experiences of care and outcomes for this group.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of empirical evidence on how best to provide midwifery and multi-disciplinary care for those with MLTC and a need for research to understand this.

INCLUSIVITY STATEMENT

Our aims refer to 'pregnant, birthing, and postnatal women and birthing people with MLTC'. We acknowledge that not all those accessing maternity services will identify as a woman. We continually strive to ensure that our research and public involvement is inclusive and sensitive to the needs of everyone. Our search terms did not narrow to either women or birthing people specifically and used broad terms of pregnancy, antenatal, prenatal, childbirth and postnatal care. All included papers use the term woman or women throughout therefore, we have used this terminology when describing their findings. Where the term 'woman' is used this should be taken to include women and people who do not identify as women but are pregnant or have given birth. This builds on our Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement work which has highlighted the need to use inclusive language.

Lost in the System: Responsibilisation and Burden for Women With Multiple Long-Term Health Conditions During Pregnancy

INTRODUCTION

Over a fifth of pregnant women are living with multiple long-term health conditions, which is associated with increased risks of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants. While there are many examples of research exploring individuals' experiences and care pathways for pregnancy with a single health condition, evidence relating to multiple health conditions is limited. This study aimed to explore experiences and care of women with multiple long-term health conditions around the time of pregnancy.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted between March 2022 and May 2023 with women with multiple long-term health conditions who were at least 28 weeks pregnant or had had a baby in the last 2 years, and healthcare professionals with experience of caring for these women. Participants were recruited from across the United Kingdom. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven women and 51 healthcare professionals participated. Five themes were identified. Women with long-term health conditions and professionals recognised that it takes a team to avoid inconsistent care and communication, for example, medication management. Often, women were required to take a care navigation role to link up their healthcare providers. Women described mixed experiences regarding care for their multiple identities and the whole person. Postnatally, women and professionals recognised a downgrade in care, particularly for women's long-term health conditions. Some professionals detailed the importance of engaging with women's knowledge, and recognising their own professional boundaries of expertise. Many participants described difficulties in providing informational continuity and subsequent impacts on care. Specifically, the setup of care systems made it difficult for everyone to access necessary information, especially when care involved multiple sites.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women with long-term health conditions can experience a substantial burden of responsibility to maintain communication with their care team, often feeling vulnerable, patronised, and let down by a lack of acknowledgement of their expertise. These results will be used to inform the content of coproduction workshops aimed at developing a list of care recommendations for affected women. It will also inform future interventional studies aimed at improving outcomes for these women and their babies.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Our Patient and Public Involvement group were involved in the design of the study and the analysis and interpretation of the data, and a public study investigator was part of the author group.

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.

Exploring continuity of care for women with prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomaly: A mixed method study

AIMS

To map the pathway and service provision for pregnant women whose newborns require admission into the surgical neonatal intensive care unit at or soon after birth, and to examine the nature of continuity of care (COC) provided and the facilitators and barriers to woman- and family-centred care from the perspective of women/parents and health professionals.

BACKGROUND

Limited research exists on current service and care pathways for families whose babies are diagnosed with congenital abnormality requiring surgery.

DESIGN

A mixed method sequential design adhering to EQUATOR guidelines for Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study.

METHODS

Data collection methods included: (1) a workshop with health professionals (n = 15), (2) retrospective maternal record review (n = 20), prospective maternal record review (17), (3) interviews with pregnant women given a prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomaly (n = 17) and (4) interviews with key health professionals (n = 7).

RESULTS/FINDINGS

Participants perceived care delivered by state-based services as problematic prior to admission into the high-risk midwifery COC model. Once admitted to the high-risk maternity team women described care 'like a breath of fresh air' with a 'contrast in support', where they felt supported in their decisions.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights provision of COC, in particular relational continuity between health providers and women as essential to achieve optimal outcomes.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Provision of individualised COC offers an opportunity for perinatal services to reduce the negative consequences of pregnancy-related stress associated with diagnosis of foetal anomaly.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public was involved in the design, analysis, preparation or writing of this review.

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.