Literature DB >> 10382476

Satisfaction with midwife-managed care in different time periods: a randomised controlled trial of 1299 women.

N Shields1, D Turnbull, M Reid, A Holmes, M McGinley, L N Smith.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare women's satisfaction with midwife-managed care with 'shared care' over three different time periods.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital, Glasgow, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 1299 women experiencing normal pregnancy (consent rate: 82%). Six hundred and forty-eight women were randomised to midwife-managed care and 651 to 'shared care'.
METHODS: Three self-report questionnaires were sent to women's homes. The questionnaires examined: satisfaction with antenatal care at 34-35 weeks' gestation, and satisfaction with intrapartum, hospital- and home-based postnatal care at seven weeks postnatally. The third questionnaire reviewed satisfaction with intrapartum care seven months after delivery.
FINDINGS: Women in both groups were satisfied. However, women in the midwife-managed group were more highly satisfied in relation to the dimensions examined: relationships with staff, information transfer, choices and decisions, and social support. The differences between the two groups were evident for all time periods (i.e. antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal periods) and were sustained at seven-month follow-up. This is illustrated in the mean scores for relationships with staff, as measured at 34-35 weeks' gestation (possible range -2; very negative attitudes to 2; very positive attitudes). Women in the midwife-managed group scored a mean of 1.22 compared to 0.74 for the 'shared care' group (mean diff: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.55). While women in both groups were more likely to make positive rather than negative comments in open-ended questions, the midwife-managed group were more likely to make positive comments whereas the 'shared care' group were more likely to make negative comments.
CONCLUSION: Midwife-managed care for healthy pregnant women which is integrated into existing services improves satisfaction with antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10382476     DOI: 10.1016/s0266-6138(98)90003-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Midwifery        ISSN: 0266-6138            Impact factor:   2.372


  12 in total

Review 1.  Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy.

Authors:  Therese Dowswell; Guillermo Carroli; Lelia Duley; Simon Gates; A Metin Gülmezoglu; Dina Khan-Neelofur; Gilda Gp Piaggio
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-10-06

Review 2.  Alternative versus standard packages of antenatal care for low-risk pregnancy.

Authors:  Therese Dowswell; Guillermo Carroli; Lelia Duley; Simon Gates; A Metin Gülmezoglu; Dina Khan-Neelofur; Gilda Piaggio
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-07-16

Review 3.  Women's experience of prenatal care: an integrative review.

Authors:  Gina Novick
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.388

4.  A shared-care model of obesity treatment for 3-10 year old children: protocol for the HopSCOTCH randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Melissa Wake; Kate Lycett; Matthew A Sabin; Jane Gunn; Kay Gibbons; Cathy Hutton; Zoe McCallum; Elissa York; Michael Stringer; Gary Wittert
Journal:  BMC Pediatr       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 2.125

Review 5.  Models of antenatal care to reduce and prevent preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Cristina Fernandez Turienzo; Jane Sandall; Janet L Peacock
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care.

Authors:  Andrew Symon; Jan Pringle; Helen Cheyne; Soo Downe; Vanora Hundley; Elaine Lee; Fiona Lynn; Alison McFadden; Jenny McNeill; Mary J Renfrew; Mary Ross-Davie; Edwin van Teijlingen; Heather Whitford; Fiona Alderdice
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 7.  Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

Authors:  Jane Sandall; Hora Soltani; Simon Gates; Andrew Shennan; Declan Devane
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-04-28

8.  Women's experience of transfer from midwifery unit to hospital obstetric unit during labour: a qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Rachel E Rowe; Jennifer J Kurinczuk; Louise Locock; Ray Fitzpatrick
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) increases women's satisfaction with antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care: results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Della A Forster; Helen L McLachlan; Mary-Ann Davey; Mary Anne Biro; Tanya Farrell; Lisa Gold; Maggie Flood; Touran Shafiei; Ulla Waldenström
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 3.007

10.  Effects of midwife-led maternity services on postpartum wellbeing and clinical outcomes in primiparous women under China's one-child policy.

Authors:  Jing Hua; Liping Zhu; Li Du; Yu Li; Zhuochun Wu; Da Wo; Wenchong Du
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.