Ewa Andersson1, Kyllike Christensson, Ingegerd Hildingsson. 1. Karolinska Institutet, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Division for Reproductive Health, Retziusväg 13 A, SE-171770 Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: Ewa.andersson@ki.se.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare women's satisfaction with group based antenatal care and standard care. DESIGN: A randomised control trial where midwives were randomized to perform either GBAC or standard care. Women were invited to evaluate the two models of care. Data was collected by two questionnaires, in early pregnancy and six months after birth. Crude and adjusted odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval were calculated by model of care. SETTINGS: Twelve antenatal clinics in Sweden between September 2008 and December 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Women in various part of Sweden (n=700). FINDINGS: In total, 8:16 variables in GBAC versus 9:16 in standard care were reported as deficient. Women in GBAC reported significantly less deficiencies with information about labour/birth OR 0.16 (0.10-0.27), breastfeeding OR 0.58 (0.37-0.90) and time following birth OR 0.61 (0.40-0.94). Engagement from the midwives OR 0.44 (0.25-0.78) and being taken seriously OR 0.55 (0.31-0.98) were also found to be less deficient. Women in GBAC reported the highest level of deficiency with information about pregnancy OR 3.45 (2.03-5.85) but reported less deficiency with time to plan the birth OR 0.61 (0.39-0.96). In addition, women in GBAC more satisfied with care in supporting contact with other parents OR 3.86 (2.30-6.46) and felt more support to initiate breastfeeding OR 1.75 (1.02-2.88). CONCLUSIONS: Women in both models of care considered the care as deficient in more than half of all areas. Variables that differed between the two models favoured group based antenatal care.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare women's satisfaction with group based antenatal care and standard care. DESIGN: A randomised control trial where midwives were randomized to perform either GBAC or standard care. Women were invited to evaluate the two models of care. Data was collected by two questionnaires, in early pregnancy and six months after birth. Crude and adjusted odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval were calculated by model of care. SETTINGS: Twelve antenatal clinics in Sweden between September 2008 and December 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Women in various part of Sweden (n=700). FINDINGS: In total, 8:16 variables in GBAC versus 9:16 in standard care were reported as deficient. Women in GBAC reported significantly less deficiencies with information about labour/birth OR 0.16 (0.10-0.27), breastfeeding OR 0.58 (0.37-0.90) and time following birth OR 0.61 (0.40-0.94). Engagement from the midwives OR 0.44 (0.25-0.78) and being taken seriously OR 0.55 (0.31-0.98) were also found to be less deficient. Women in GBAC reported the highest level of deficiency with information about pregnancy OR 3.45 (2.03-5.85) but reported less deficiency with time to plan the birth OR 0.61 (0.39-0.96). In addition, women in GBAC more satisfied with care in supporting contact with other parents OR 3.86 (2.30-6.46) and felt more support to initiate breastfeeding OR 1.75 (1.02-2.88). CONCLUSIONS:Women in both models of care considered the care as deficient in more than half of all areas. Variables that differed between the two models favoured group based antenatal care.
Authors: Olukunmi O Balogun; Elizabeth J O'Sullivan; Alison McFadden; Erika Ota; Anna Gavine; Christine D Garner; Mary J Renfrew; Stephen MacGillivray Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-11-09
Authors: Felix Sayinzoga; Tiffany Lundeen; Mathias Gakwerere; Emmanuel Manzi; Yvonne Delphine U Nsaba; M Providence Umuziga; Ina R Kalisa; Sabine F Musange; Dilys Walker Journal: J Midwifery Womens Health Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 2.388