Literature DB >> 10765581

Comparison of midwifery care to medical care in hospitals in the Quebec pilot projects study: clinical indicators. L'Equipe dEvaluation des Projets-Pilotes Sages-Femmes.

W Fraser1, M Hatem-Asmar, I Krauss, F Maillard, G Bréart, R Blais.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare indicators of process and outcome of midwifery services provided in the Quebec pilot projects to those associated with standard hospital-based medical services. Women receiving each type of care (961 per group) were matched on the basis of socio-demographic characteristics and level of obstetrical risk. We found midwifery care to be associated with less obstetrical intervention and a reduction in selected indicators of maternal morbidity (caesarean section and severe perineal injury). For neonatal outcome indicators, midwifery care was associated with a mixture of benefits and risks: fewer babies with preterm birth and low birthweight, but a trend toward a higher stillbirth ratio and more frequent requirement for neonatal resuscitation. The study design does not permit to conclude that the associations were causal in nature. However, the high stillbirth rate observed in the group of women who were selected for midwife care raises concerns both regarding the appropriateness of the screening procedures for admission to such care and regarding the quality of care itself.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10765581

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Public Health        ISSN: 0008-4263


  10 in total

1.  Are home births safe?

Authors:  Régis Blais
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-02-05       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Mix of Maternity Care Providers in Canada.

Authors:  Harminder Guliani
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2015-08

3.  UK childbirth delivery options in 2001-2002: alternatives to consultant unit booking and delivery.

Authors:  Lindsay Fp Smith; Caroline P Smith
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Outcomes of planned home births versus planned hospital births after regulation of midwifery in British Columbia.

Authors:  Patricia A Janssen; Shoo K Lee; Elizabeth M Ryan; Duncan J Etches; Duncan F Farquharson; Donlim Peacock; Michael C Klein
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-02-05       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Freestanding midwifery units versus obstetric units: does the effect of place of birth differ with level of social disadvantage?

Authors:  Charlotte Overgaard; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Jane Sandall
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Freestanding midwifery unit versus obstetric unit: a matched cohort study of outcomes in low-risk women.

Authors:  Charlotte Overgaard; Anna Margrethe Møller; Morten Fenger-Grøn; Lisbeth B Knudsen; Jane Sandall
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2011-01-01       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  How do pregnancy and birth experiences influence planned place of birth in future pregnancies? Findings from a longitudinal, narrative study.

Authors:  Kirstie Coxon; Jane Sandall; Naomi J Fulop
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 3.689

8.  Are freestanding midwifery units a safe alternative to obstetric units for low-risk, primiparous childbirth? An analysis of effect differences by parity in a matched cohort study.

Authors:  Louise Fischer Christensen; Charlotte Overgaard
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  A literature review on integrated perinatal care.

Authors:  Charo Rodríguez; Catherine des Rivières-Pigeon
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2007-07-19       Impact factor: 5.120

10.  Barriers and facilitators related to implementation of regulated midwifery in Manitoba: a case study.

Authors:  Kellie Thiessen; Maureen Heaman; Javier Mignone; Patricia Martens; Kristine Robinson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 2.655

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.