Literature DB >> 26190817

Getting the first birth right: A retrospective study of outcomes for low-risk primiparous women receiving standard care versus midwifery model of care in the same tertiary hospital.

Nola Wong1, Jenny Browne2, Sally Ferguson2, Jan Taylor2, Deborah Davis3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is national and international concern for increasing obstetric intervention in childbirth and rising caesarean section rates. Repeat caesarean section is a major contributing factor, making primiparous women an important target for strategies to reduce unnecessary intervention and surgeries in childbirth. AIM: The aim was to compare outcomes for a cohort of low risk primiparous women who accessed a midwifery continuity model of care with those who received standard public care in the same tertiary hospital.
METHODS: A retrospective comparative cohort study design was implemented drawing on data from two databases held by a tertiary hospital for the period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. Categorical data were analysed using the chi-squared statistic and Fisher's exact test. Continuous data were analysed using Student's t-test. Comparisons are presented using unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values with significance set at 0.05.
RESULTS: Data for 426 women experiencing continuity of midwifery care and 1220 experiencing standard public care were compared. The study found increased rates of normal vaginal birth (57.7% vs. 48.9% p=0.002) and spontaneous vaginal birth (38% vs. 22.4% p=<0.001) and decreased rates of instrumental birth (23.5% vs. 28.5% p=0.050) and caesarean sections (18.8% vs. 22.5% p=0.115) in the midwifery continuity cohort. There were also fewer interventions in this group. No differences were found in neonatal outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Strategies for reducing caesarean section rates and interventions in childbirth should focus on primiparous women as a priority. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of continuity midwifery models, suggesting that this is an important strategy for improving outcomes in this population.
Copyright © 2015 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Birth; Birth centre; Continuity; Midwifery; Primiparous

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26190817     DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2015.06.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Women Birth        ISSN: 1871-5192            Impact factor:   3.172


  5 in total

1.  A direct comparison of patient-reported outcomes and experiences in alternative models of maternity care in Queensland, Australia.

Authors:  Yvette D Miller; Jessica Tone; Sutapa Talukdar; Elizabeth Martin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  Factors associated with cesarean delivery during labor in primiparous women assisted in the Brazilian Public Health System: data from a National Survey.

Authors:  Marcos Augusto Bastos Dias; Rosa Maria Soares Madeira Domingues; Arthur Orlando Corrêa Schilithz; Marcos Nakamura-Pereira; Maria do Carmo Leal
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.223

3.  Labouring Together: collaborative alliances in maternity care in Victoria, Australia-protocol of a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Vanessa Watkins; Cate Nagle; Bridie Kent; Alison M Hutchinson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  The relationship between midwife-led group-based versus conventional antenatal care and mode of birth: a matched cohort study.

Authors:  Lauren Kearney; Mary Kynn; Alison Craswell; Rachel Reed
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Comparison between continuing midwifery care and standard maternity care in vaginal birth after cesarean.

Authors:  Tieying Zhang; Chunna Liu
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.088

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.