Literature DB >> 11080465

A randomised study of midwifery caseload care and traditional 'shared-care'.

.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate caseload midwifery care in comparison to traditional 'shared care'.
DESIGN: Comparative study with area randomisation.
SETTING: District general hospital in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 'Known carer at delivery,' 'normal vaginal delivery' and 'obstetric intervention'.
SUBJECTS: All pregnant women delivering in the six areas chosen for the study. MAIN
FINDINGS: A highly significant difference was found between caseload and traditional care groups in terms of level of 'known carer at delivery' (696/770 94.7%; cf. 52/735 (6.7%), p < 0.001). However, no differences in 'normal vaginal delivery' rates were found (542/770 (70%) cf. 509/735 (69%). There were fewer 'obstetric interventions' in the caseload group, particularly epidural analgesia (80/770 (10%) cf. 110/735 (15%) p = 0.01) and oxytocin augmentation (351/77 (46%) cf. 387/735 (53%), p = 0.01). There were no significant differences found in terms of neonatal outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Caseload midwifery results in high levels of 'known carer at delivery' which appears to be associated with a reduction in augmentation and epidural rates but which were not associated with an increase in normal vaginal delivery rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11080465     DOI: 10.1054/midw.2000.0224

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


  8 in total

1.  Promoting normality in childbirth.

Authors:  R Johanson; M Newburn
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-11-17

2.  Exploring implementation and sustainability of models of care: can theory help?

Authors:  Della A Forster; Michelle Newton; Helen L McLachlan; Karen Willis
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-11-25       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 3.  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 4.  Antenatal care trial interventions: a systematic scoping review and taxonomy development of care models.

Authors:  Andrew Symon; Jan Pringle; 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:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 5.  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

6.  COSMOS: COmparing Standard Maternity care with one-to-one midwifery support: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Helen L McLachlan; Della A Forster; Mary-Ann Davey; Judith Lumley; Tanya Farrell; Jeremy Oats; Lisa Gold; Ulla Waldenström; Leah Albers; Mary Anne Biro
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Is a randomised controlled trial of a maternity care intervention for pregnant adolescents possible? An Australian feasibility study.

Authors:  Jyai Allen; Helen Stapleton; Sally Tracy; Sue Kildea
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Women's characteristics and care outcomes of caseload midwifery care in the Netherlands: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Pien Offerhaus; Suze Jans; Chantal Hukkelhoven; Raymond de Vries; Marianne Nieuwenhuijze
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 3.007

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.