Yu Gao1, Lisa Gold2, Cath Josif3, Sarah Bar-Zeev4, Malinda Steenkamp5, Lesley Barclay6, Yuejen Zhao7, Sally Tracy8, Sue Kildea9. 1. University Centre for Rural Health North Coast, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Electronic address: yu.gao@ucrh.edu.au. 2. Deakin Population Health SRC, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia. Electronic address: lisa.gold@deakin.edu.au. 3. University Centre for Rural Health North Coast, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Electronic address: cfar3313@uni.sydney.edu.au. 4. University Centre for Rural Health North Coast, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Electronic address: sbarzeev@mail.usyd.edu.au. 5. Life Course and Intergenerational Health Research Group (LIGHt), Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia. Electronic address: malinda.steenkamp@adelaide.edu.au. 6. University Centre for Rural Health North Coast, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Electronic address: Lesley.barclay@sydney.edu.au. 7. Health Gains Planning, Northern Territory Department of Health, Darwin, NT 0811, Australia. Electronic address: Yuejen.zhao@nt.gov.au. 8. Sydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Electronic address: stracy@ozemail.com.au. 9. Women's Health and Newborn Services, Australia Catholic University and Mater Mothers Hospital, Brisbane 4101, Australia. Electronic address: sue.kildea@acu.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to compare the cost-effectiveness of two models of service delivery: Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) and baseline cohort. DESIGN: a retrospective and prospective cohort study. SETTING: a regional hospital in Northern Territory (NT), Australia. METHODS: baseline cohort included all Aboriginal mothers (n=412), and their infants (n=416), from two remote communities who gave birth between 2004 and 2006. The MGP cohort included all Aboriginal mothers (n=310), and their infants (n=315), from seven communities who gave birth between 2009 and 2011. The baseline cohort mothers and infant's medical records were retrospectively audited and the MGP cohort data were prospectively collected. All the direct costs, from the Department of Health (DH) perspective, occurred from the first antenatal presentation to six weeks post partum for mothers and up to 28 days post births for infants were included for analysis. ANALYSIS: analysis was performed with SPSS 19.0 and Stata 12.1. Independent sample of t-tests and χ2 were conducted. FINDINGS: women receiving MGP care had significantly more antenatal care, more ultrasounds, were more likely to be admitted to hospital antenatally, and had more postnatal care in town. The MGP cohort had significantly reduced average length of stay for infants admitted to Special Care Nursery (SCN). There was no significant difference between the two cohorts for major birth outcomes such as mode of birth, preterm birth rate and low birth weight. Costs savings (mean A$703) were found, although these were not statistically significant, for women and their infants receiving MGP care compared to the baseline cohort. CONCLUSIONS: for remote dwelling Aboriginal women of all risk who travelled to town for birth, MGP was likely to be cost effective, and women received better care and resulting in equivalent birth outcomes compared with the baseline maternity care.
OBJECTIVE: to compare the cost-effectiveness of two models of service delivery: Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) and baseline cohort. DESIGN: a retrospective and prospective cohort study. SETTING: a regional hospital in Northern Territory (NT), Australia. METHODS: baseline cohort included all Aboriginal mothers (n=412), and their infants (n=416), from two remote communities who gave birth between 2004 and 2006. The MGP cohort included all Aboriginal mothers (n=310), and their infants (n=315), from seven communities who gave birth between 2009 and 2011. The baseline cohort mothers and infant's medical records were retrospectively audited and the MGP cohort data were prospectively collected. All the direct costs, from the Department of Health (DH) perspective, occurred from the first antenatal presentation to six weeks post partum for mothers and up to 28 days post births for infants were included for analysis. ANALYSIS: analysis was performed with SPSS 19.0 and Stata 12.1. Independent sample of t-tests and χ2 were conducted. FINDINGS:women receiving MGP care had significantly more antenatal care, more ultrasounds, were more likely to be admitted to hospital antenatally, and had more postnatal care in town. The MGP cohort had significantly reduced average length of stay for infants admitted to Special Care Nursery (SCN). There was no significant difference between the two cohorts for major birth outcomes such as mode of birth, preterm birth rate and low birth weight. Costs savings (mean A$703) were found, although these were not statistically significant, for women and their infants receiving MGP care compared to the baseline cohort. CONCLUSIONS: for remote dwelling Aboriginal women of all risk who travelled to town for birth, MGP was likely to be cost effective, and women received better care and resulting in equivalent birth outcomes compared with the baseline maternity care.
Authors: Patricia A Smith; Catherine Kilgour; Deann Rice; Leonie K Callaway; Elizabeth K Martin Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Shingisai Chando; Martin Howell; Christian Young; Jonathan C Craig; Sandra J Eades; Michelle Dickson; Kirsten Howard Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Melanie E Gibson-Helm; Alice R Rumbold; Helena J Teede; Sanjeeva Ranasinha; Ross S Bailie; Jacqueline A Boyle Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Michelle Durst; Margaret Rolfe; Jo Longman; Sarah Robin; Beverley Dhnaram; Kathryn Mullany; Ian Wright; Lesley Barclay Journal: Aust J Rural Health Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 1.662