Literature DB >> 26381076

A cost-comparison of midwife-led compared with consultant-led maternity care in Ireland (the MidU study).

Christopher Kenny1, Declan Devane2, Charles Normand3, Mike Clarke4, Aoife Howard5, Cecily Begley6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: to compare the cost of maternity care between two midwife-led units, and their linked consultant-led units, following a large randomised trial in Ireland.
DESIGN: ethical approval was received for this unblinded, pragmatic randomised trial (MidU) funded by the Health Service Executive (Dublin North-East, Ireland), conducted 2004-2009. A comparison of costs analysis was conducted on the outcomes from the trial.
SETTING: two maternity units in Ireland, with 'alongside' midwife-led units. PARTICIPANTS: all women without risk factors for labour and birth who booked at the two maternity units before 24 weeks׳ gestation were assessed for inclusion. Consenting women (n=1653) were centrally randomised on a 2:1 ratio (1101:552) to midwife-led or consultant-led care.
INTERVENTIONS: women randomised to consultant-led care received standard care. Women randomised to the midwife-led arm received midwife-led care provided by a small group of midwives in two units, situated ׳alongside׳ the consultant-led units, throughout pregnancy, birth and postnatal. MEASUREMENTS: mean difference in clinician salaries, cost of care based on managers׳ data, known costs of postnatal bed days and costs of key interventions were measured.
FINDINGS: the average cost of caring for a woman allocated to the midwife-led units was €2598, compared to €2780 in the consultant-led units (average difference €182 per woman, analysed by 'intention to treat'). KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: care in these two midwife-led units costs less than care provided by the consultant-led units. Given the clinical findings, which showed that care provided in the midwife-led units is as safe as that in the consultant-led units and results in less intervention, more midwife-led units should be incorporated into maternity care in Ireland so that scarce resources can be used more effectively.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost-; Economic analysis; Midwife-led care; Normal birth; Randomised trial

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26381076     DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2015.06.012

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


  11 in total

Review 1.  Costing Alternative Birth Settings for Women at Low Risk of Complications: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Vanessa Scarf; Christine Catling; Rosalie Viney; Caroline Homer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Two Alternative Models of Maternity Care in Ireland.

Authors:  Christopher G Fawsitt; Jane Bourke; Aileen Murphy; Brendan McElroy; Jennifer E Lutomski; Rosemary Murphy; Richard A Greene
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.561

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.  Midwife-led maternity care in Ireland - a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Anna Dencker; Valerie Smith; Colette McCann; Cecily Begley
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 5.  Caesarean Section on Maternal Request: An Italian Comparative Study on Patients' Characteristics, Pregnancy Outcomes and Guidelines Overview.

Authors:  Luisa Masciullo; Luciano Petruzziello; Giuseppina Perrone; Francesco Pecorini; Caterina Remiddi; Paola Galoppi; Roberto Brunelli
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 6.  Cost-effectiveness of continuity of midwifery care for women with complex pregnancy: a structured review of the literature.

Authors:  Roslyn E Donnellan-Fernandez; Debra K Creedy; Emily J Callander
Journal:  Health Econ Rev       Date:  2018-12-05

Review 7.  Antenatal and intrapartum interventions for reducing caesarean section, promoting vaginal birth, and reducing fear of childbirth: An overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Valerie Smith; Louise Gallagher; Margaret Carroll; Kathleen Hannon; Cecily Begley
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  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

9.  Factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section in Sweden - a qualitative study.

Authors:  Sunita Panda; Deirdre Daly; Cecily Begley; Annika Karlström; Birgitta Larsson; Lena Bäck; Ingegerd Hildingsson
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 3.007

10.  Value based maternal and newborn care requires alignment of adequate resources with high value activities.

Authors:  Ank De Jonge; Soo Downe; Lesley Page; Declan Devane; Helena Lindgren; Joke Klinkert; Muir Gray; Anant Jani
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.