Midwife-led Continuity Models Research Articles

Predictors and trends of Caesarean section and breastfeeding in the Eastern Mediterranean region: Data from the cross-sectional Cyprus Women's Health Research (COHERE) Initiative.

Caesarean section (C-section) is a life-saving procedure when medically indicated but unmet need and overuse can add to avoidable morbidity and mortality. It is not clear whether C-section has a negative impact on breastfeeding and there is limited data available on rates of C-section or breastfeeding from Northern Cyprus, an emerging region in Europe. This study aimed to investigate prevalence, trends and associations of C-section and breastfeeding in this population. Using self-reported data from the representative Cyprus Women's Health Research (COHERE) Initiative, we used 2,836 first pregnancies to describe trends in C-section and breastfeeding between 1981 and 2017. Using modified Poisson regression, we examined the relationship between year of pregnancy and C-section and breastfeeding, as well as the association between C-section and breastfeeding prevalence and duration. C-section prevalence in first pregnancies increased from 11.1% in 1981 to 72.5% in 2017 with a relative risk of 2.60 (95%CI; 2.14-2.15) of babies being delivered by C-section after 2005 compared to before 1995, after full adjustment for demographic and maternal medical and pregnancy related factors. Prevalence of ever breastfeeding remained steady throughout the years at 88.7% and there was no significant association between breastfeeding initiation and the year of pregnancy, or demographic and maternal medical and pregnancy related variables. After full adjustment, women who gave birth after 2005 were 1.24 (95%CI; 1.06-1.45) times more likely to breastfeed for >12 weeks compared to women who gave birth before 1995. There was no association between C-section and breastfeeding prevalence or length. Prevalence of C-section in this population is much higher than WHO recommendations. Public awareness campaigns surrounding choice during pregnancy and change in legal framework to allow for midwife-led continuity models of birthing care should be implemented. Further research is required to understand the reasons and drivers behind this high rate.

P43 - Providing health equity in midwifery continuity of care: Aboriginal Dads and Bubs

Western Sydney Local Health District (WSLHD) has a large urban Aboriginal population, with numerous health and social inequities, which lead to health disparities including significantly higher rates of avoidable perinatal death, pre-term birth and low birth weight babies (McInerney et al. 2019). Optimising the early life environment is key to reducing these inequities. Sandall, Soltani, Gates, Shennan, & Devane's (2016) systematic review reports that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely satisfied with their care, engagement in perinatal care increased, and the risk of chronic disease was altered. Additionally, collaborative practice with Aboriginal Health Practitioners improves culturally sensitive health interventions, like smoking reduction. In 2019 the WSLHD quality project ‘review of outcomes for families with the father, or the baby, identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander’ were comparable to the outcomes of women identified to already receive continuity of care due to Aboriginality. From 2020, WSLHD’s new caseload model of care, Dragonfly Midwifery, is servicing families of women and fathers (or babies) who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander to meet this comparative need, to impact on interventions that can reduce health inequity. 50% of Aboriginal women versus 7% were recorded as smoking in pregnancy in WSLHD. (eMaternity, 2021). NSW rates had declined previously, but not in WSLHD. Quit smoking in the first half of pregnancy in 2021, following a targeted smoking cessation program and Aboriginal caseload, has shown a 7% reduction in low birth weight babies in WSLHD in the last 3 months. Midwifery caseload and a smoking cessation program can impact smoking rates, hence including all pregnancies with First Nations babies may be optimal practice to impact intergenerational health.

Women\u2019s perception of continuity of team midwifery care in Iran: a qualitative content analysis

BackgroundUnderstanding the pregnant women’s perception of continuity of team midwifery care is necessary for introducing and implementing this model of midwife-led care in the Iranian maternity services. This qualitative study aims to explore women’s perception of continuity of team midwifery care in Iran.MethodsThis research is a qualitative study conducted in Iran to explore women’s perception of continuity of team midwifery care during pregnancy, birth and postpartum from October 2019 to August 2020. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with women individually in private midwifery clinic through a purposive sampling method. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim in Persian and analyzed using conventional content analysis.ResultsFrom the data analysis, two themes, four main categories, and nine subcategories emerged. The themes were “Maternal empowerment” and “Mother’s satisfaction during the transition from pregnancy to motherhood”. The first theme included two categories of improving self-efficacy during antenatal education classes and the effective midwife-mother interaction. The second theme composed of two categories of satisfaction with the process of pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum as well as satisfaction with motherhood.ConclusionFindings of this qualitative study highlight the effectiveness of continuity of team midwifery model of care for promoting empowerment and satisfaction in women during pregnancy, birth and postpartum. The results of this study could pave the way for developing, introducing and implementing the midwife-led continuity models of care in Iran.

World Prematurity Day: improving survival and quality of life for millions of babies born preterm around the world

World Prematurity Day: improving survival and quality of life for millions of babies born preterm around the world

Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.

Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.

166: CONTINUOUS MIDWIFERY LED CARE COMPARED TO OTHER MODELS: AN EVIDENCE-BASED JOURNAL CLUB

Background and aims:In many parts of the world, midwives are as the primary caregivers of reproductive aged women. The delivery service model by midwife is designed based on the fact...

Is there randomized controlled trial evidence to support the use of midwife-led continuity models instead of other models of care in childbearing women?

Is there randomized controlled trial evidence to support the use of midwife-led continuity models instead of other models of care in childbearing women?

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care. To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models. This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

Delivering change, transforming care: The ‘LINC’ to reducing preterm birth

African Journal of Midwifery and Women's HealthVol. 10, No. 1 Policy and ProgressDelivering change, transforming care: The ‘LINC’ to reducing preterm birthFelicity UkokoFelicity UkokoSearch for more papers by this authorFelicity UkokoPublished Online:28 Jan 2016https://doi.org/10.12968/ajmw.2016.10.1.6AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Declan Devane D; Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (2013) Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8: CD004667. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub3 Google ScholarUNICEF (2015) Committing to Child Survival: A Promise Renewed. http://bit.ly/1NbxZ0N (accessed 9 December 2015) Google ScholarUnited Nations Foundation (2015) What is Every Woman Every Child? http://bit.ly/1YYHi9w (accessed 9 December 2015) Google ScholarWorld Health Organization (2008) Born Too Soon: The Global Action Report on Preterm Birth. http://bit.ly/1jO4ozP (accessed 9 December 2015) Google ScholarWorld Health Organization (2015) Preterm Birth. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs363/en/ (accessed 9 December 2015) Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails 2 January 2016Volume 10Issue 1ISSN (online): 2052-4293 Metrics History Published online 28 January 2016 Published in print 2 January 2016 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download

Models of antenatal care to reduce and prevent preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of models of antenatal care designed to prevent and reduce preterm birth (PTB) in pregnant women.MethodsWe conducted a search of seven electronic databases and reference lists of retrieved studies to identify trials from inception up to July 2014 where pregnant women, regardless of risk factors for pregnancy complications, were randomly allocated to receive an alternative model of antenatal care or routine care. We pooled risks of PTB to determine the effect of alternative care models in all pregnant women. We also assessed secondary maternal and infant outcomes, women's satisfaction and economic outcomes.Results15 trials involving 22 437 women were included. Pregnant women in alternative care models were less likely to experience PTB (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96). The subgroup of women randomised to midwife-led continuity models of antenatal care were less likely to experience PTB (0.78, 0.66 to 0.91) but there was no significant difference between this group and women allocated to specialised care (0.92, 0.76 to 1.12) (interaction test for subgroup differences p=0.20). Overall low-risk women in alternative care models were less likely to have PTB (0.74, 0.59 to 0.93), but this effect was not significantly different from that in mixed-risk populations (0.91, 0.79 to 1.05) (subgroup p=0.13).ConclusionsAlternative models of antenatal care for all pregnant women are effective in reducing PTB compared with routine care, but no firm conclusions could be drawn regarding the relative benefits of the two models. Future research should evaluate the impact of antenatal care models which include more recent interventions and predictive tests, and which also offer continuity of care by midwives throughout pregnancy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42014007116.

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care. To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e., regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = 8; high quality) and less overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = 4), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss/neonatal death before 24 weeks (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = 7), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = 3) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = 7). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss or neonatal death more than or equal to 24 weeks, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models. This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and overall fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

Caseload midwifery as organisational change: the interplay between professional and organisational projects in Denmark.

BackgroundThe large obstetric units typical of industrialised countries have come under criticism for fragmented and depersonalised care and heavy bureaucracy. Interest in midwife-led continuity models of care is growing, but knowledge about the accompanying processes of organisational change is scarce. This study focuses on midwives’ role in introducing and developing caseload midwifery. Sociological studies of midwifery and organisational studies of professional groups were used to capture the strong interests of midwives in caseload midwifery and their key role together with management in negotiating organisational change.MethodsWe studied three hospitals in Denmark as arenas for negotiating the introduction and development of caseload midwifery and the processes, interests and resources involved. A qualitative multi-case design was used and the selection of hospitals aimed at maximising variance. Ten individual and 14 group interviews were conducted in spring 2013. Staff were represented by caseload midwives, ward midwives, obstetricians and health visitors, management by chief midwives and their deputies. Participants were recruited to maximise the diversity of experience. The data analysis adopted a thematic approach, using within- and across-case analysis.ResultsThe analysis revealed a highly interdependent interplay between organisational and professional projects in the change processes involved in the introduction and development of caseload midwifery. This was reflected in three ways: first, in the key role of negotiations in all phases; second, in midwives’ and management’s engagement in both types of projects (as evident from their interests and resources); and third in a high capacity for resolving tensions between the two projects. The ward midwives’ role as a third party in organisational change further complicated the process.ConclusionsFor managers tasked with the introduction and development of caseload midwifery, our study underscores the importance of understanding the complexity of the underlying change processes and of activating midwives’ and managers’ interests and resources in addressing the challenges. Further studies of female-dominated professions such as midwifery should offer good opportunities for detailed analysis of the deep-seated interdependence of professional and organisational projects and for identifying the key dimensions of this interdependence.

Normal birth in the shadow of Morecambe Bay

British Journal of MidwiferyVol. 23, No. 4 BirthwriteNormal birth in the shadow of Morecambe BayLesley PageLesley PageSearch for more papers by this authorLesley PagePublished Online:2 Apr 2015https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2015.23.4.234AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References Kirkup B (2015) The report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation. Stationery Office, London Google ScholarNHS England (2015) NHS England announces national review of maternity care. http://tinyurl.com/ko8z736 (accessed 16 March 2015) Google ScholarNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2014) Intrapartum Care: Care of Healthy women and their babies during childbirth. 1.1 Choosing place of birth. NICE, London Google ScholarRoyal College of Midwives (2015) Better births initiative. www.rcm.org.uk/clinical-practice-and-guidelines/better-births (accessed 16 March 2015) Google ScholarSandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D (2013) Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8: CD004667. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub3 Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byIt's time to rethink our vocabulary7 May 2015 | British Journal of Midwifery, Vol. 23, No. 5 2 April 2015Volume 23Issue 4ISSN (print): 0969-4900ISSN (online): 2052-4307 Metrics History Published online 2 April 2015 Published in print 2 April 2015 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download

Exploration of preterm birth rates associated with different models of antenatal midwifery care in Scotland: Unmatched retrospective cohort analysis

Objectivespreterm birth represents a significant personal, clinical, organisational and financial burden. Strategies to reduce the preterm birth rate have had limited success. Limited evidence indicates that certain antenatal care models may offer some protection, although the causal mechanism is not understood. We sought to compare preterm birth rates for mixed-risk pregnant women accessing antenatal care organised at a freestanding midwifery unit (FMU) and mixed-risk pregnant women attending an obstetric unit (OU) with related community-based antenatal care. Methodsunmatched retrospective 4-year Scottish cohort analysis (2008–2011) of mixed-risk pregnant women accessing (i) FMU antenatal care (n=1107); (ii) combined community-based and OU antenatal care (n=7567). Data were accessed via the Information and Statistics Division of the NHS in Scotland. Aggregates analysis and binary logistic regression were used to compare the cohorts׳ rates of preterm birth; and of spontaneous labour onset, use of pharmacological analgesia, unassisted vertex birth, and low birth weight. Odds ratios were adjusted for age, parity, deprivation score and smoking status in pregnancy. Findingsafter adjustment the ‘mixed risk’ FMU cohort had a statistically significantly reduced risk of preterm birth (5.1% [n=57] versus 7.7% [n=583]; AOR 0.73 [95% CI 0.55–0.98]; p=0.034). Differences in these secondary outcome measures were also statistically significant: spontaneous labour onset (FMU 83.9% versus OU 74.6%; AOR 1.74 [95% CI 1.46–2.08]; p<0.001); minimal intrapartum analgesia (FMU 53.7% versus OU 34.4%; AOR 2.17 [95% CI 1.90–2.49]; p<0.001); spontaneous vertex delivery (FMU 71.9% versus OU 63.5%; AOR 1.46 [95% CI 1.32–1.78]; p<0.001). Incidence of low birth weight was not statistically significant after adjustment for other variables. There was no significant difference in the rate of perinatal or neonatal death. Conclusionsgiven this study׳s methodological limitations, we can only claim associations between the care model and or chosen outcomes. Although both cohorts were mixed risk, differences in risk levels could have contributed to these findings. Nevertheless, the significant difference in preterm birth rates in this study resonates with other research, including the recent Cochrane review of midwife-led continuity models. Because of the multiplicity of risk factors for preterm birth we need to explore the salient features of the FMU model which may be contributing to this apparent protective effect. Because a randomised controlled trial would necessarily restrict choice to pregnant women, we feel that this option is problematic in exploring this further. We therefore plan to conduct a prospective matched cohort analysis together with a survey of unit practices and experiences.

Achieving a positive balance

British Journal of MidwiferyVol. 21, No. 11 BirthwriteAchieving a positive balanceCathy WarwickCathy WarwickSearch for more papers by this authorCathy WarwickPublished Online:18 Nov 2013https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2013.21.11.766AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (2012) The Birthplace cohort study: Key findings. www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/birthplace/results (accessed 22 October 2013) Google ScholarNational Federation of Women's Institutes and NCT (2013) Support Overdue: Women's experiences of maternity services. NCT, London Google ScholarRoyal College of Midwives (2013) Evidence to the NHS Pay Review Body for 2014. RCM, London Google ScholarRoyal College of Midwives, Birthchoice UK (2013) Trends in Freestanding Midwife-led Units in England and Wales 2001-2013. RCM, London Google ScholarSandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D (2013) Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. The Cochrane Library 3: CD004667 Google ScholarTracy SK, Hartz DL, Tracy MB, Allen J, Forti A, Hall B, White J, Lainchbury A, Stapleton H, Beckmann M, Bisits A, Homer C, Foureur M, Welsh A, Kildea S (2013) Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: [email protected], a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 382: DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61406-3 Crossref, Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byPriority issues from 0–199 March 2015 | British Journal of Midwifery, Vol. 23, No. 3Joint call for addressing issues in the 0–19 health-care service16 March 2015 | British Journal of School Nursing, Vol. 10, No. 2Priority issues from 0–1920 March 2015 | Journal of Health Visiting, Vol. 3, No. 3 1 November 2013Volume 21Issue 11ISSN (print): 0969-4900ISSN (online): 2052-4307 Metrics History Published online 18 November 2013 Published in print 1 November 2013 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download

Research on midwifery continuity of care shows many advantages

British Journal of MidwiferyVol. 21, No. 10 BirthwriteResearch on midwifery continuity of care shows many advantagesLesley PageLesley PageSearch for more papers by this authorLesley PagePublished Online:30 Sep 2013https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2013.21.10.690AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References Birthplace in England Collaborative Group (2011) Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies. The Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. BMJ 343 Crossref, Google ScholarDevane D, Brennan M, Begley C, Clarke M, Walsh D, Sandall J, Ryan P, Revill P Normand C (2010) Socioeconomic value of the Midwife. A systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis and economic analysis of midwife-led models of care. RCM, London Google ScholarPage L (2003) One-to-one midwifery: Restoring the “with woman” relationship in midwifery. Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health 48(2): 119–25 Crossref, Google ScholarPage L (2013) We’ve become blind to the risks of having babies by caesarean. theconversation.com/weve-become-blind-to-the-risks-of-having-babies-by-caesearean-14067 (accessed 16 September 2013) Google ScholarSandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D (2013) Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. The Cochrane Library 3: CD004667 Google ScholarTracy S, Tracy MB, Allan I, Forti A, Hall B, White J, Lainchbury A, Stapleton H, Beckman B, Bisits A, Homer C, Foureur M, Welsh A, Kildea S (2013) Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: [email protected], a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 382: DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61406-3 Crossref, Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byContinuity or team-teaching approach for midwifery education? An exploratory qualitative study of student and academic preferencesWomen and Birth, Vol. 30Graduating midwifery students’ preferred model of practice and first job decisions: A qualitative studyWomen and Birth, Vol. 34, No. 1The known and trusted midwife5 April 2014 | British Journal of Midwifery, Vol. 22, No. 4Taking It Into Account: Caring for Disabled Mothers During Pregnancy and Birth1 January 2014 | International Journal of Childbirth, Vol. 4, No. 4 1 October 2013Volume 21Issue 10ISSN (print): 0969-4900ISSN (online): 2052-4307 Metrics History Published online 30 September 2013 Published in print 1 October 2013 Information© MA Healthcare LimitedPDF download