Literature DB >> 24269149

Changing models of public antenatal care in Australia: is current practice meeting the needs of vulnerable populations?

Stephanie J Brown1, Georgina A Sutherland2, Jane M Gunn3, Jane S Yelland4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: to investigate women's views and experiences of public antenatal care.
DESIGN: population-based survey in two states.
SETTING: South Australia and Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 4366 women surveyed at 5-6 months post partum.
FINDINGS: of 8468 eligible women mailed the survey, 52% returned completed questionnaires. Fifty-seven per cent of women (2496/4339) received public antenatal care. Of these, half attended a GP for some/all antenatal visits, 38% attended a public hospital clinic or midwives clinic, and 12% had primary midwife care, mostly in a midwifery group practice. Women with complex needs - young women, those experiencing multiple social health problems, women of non-English speaking background, and women at higher risk of complications in pregnancy - were the least likely to say that care met their needs. Women attending a GP or midwife as a primary caregiver were the most positive about their antenatal care: 69% and 74% respectively describing their antenatal care as 'very good'. Women attending a standard public hospital clinic were the least positive about their antenatal care with only 48% rating their care as 'very good'. Women enroling in GP shared care or attending a midwives clinic at a public hospital gave intermediate ratings. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Models of public antenatal care involving a designated lead primary caregiver (GP or midwife) came closest to meeting women's need for information, individualised care and support.
© 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antenatal care; Patient experience; Vulnerable populations

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24269149     DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.10.018

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Group versus conventional antenatal care for women.

Authors:  Christine J Catling; Nancy Medley; Maralyn Foureur; Clare Ryan; Nicky Leap; Alison Teate; Caroline S E Homer
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-02-04

2.  Experiences and wishes of women regarding systemic aspects of midwifery care in Germany: a qualitative study with focus groups.

Authors:  Elke Mattern; Susanne Lohmann; Gertrud M Ayerle
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-11-21       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  Perinatal care for women with refugee backgrounds from African countries: a qualitative study of intersections with psychological wellbeing.

Authors:  Clemence Due; Moira Walsh; Isadora Aldam; Amelia Winter; Susan Cooper; Josephine Sheriff; Anna Ziersch
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 3.105

4.  How do Australian maternity and early childhood health services identify and respond to the settlement experience and social context of refugee background families?

Authors:  Jane Yelland; Elisha Riggs; Sayed Wahidi; Fatema Fouladi; Sue Casey; Josef Szwarc; Philippa Duell-Piening; Donna Chesters; Stephanie Brown
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-10-06       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Screening for post 32-week preterm birth risk: how helpful is routine perinatal data collection?

Authors:  Wei Luo; Emily Y-S Huning; Truyen Tran; Dinh Phung; Svetha Venkatesh
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2016-06-01
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.