Search

Objective: To determine the effect of primary midwife-led care ('caseload midwifery') on women's experiences of childbirth.Design: Randomised controlled trial.Setting: Tertiary care women's hospital in Melbourne, Australia.Population: A total of 2314 low-risk pregnant women.Methods: Women randomised to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a primary midwife, with some care provided by a 'back-up' midwife. Women in standard care received midwifery-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care or community-based medical care.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome of the study was caesarean section. This paper presents a secondary outcome, women's experience of childbirth. Women's views and experiences were sought using seven-point rating scales via postal questionnaires 2 months after the birth.Results: A total of 2314 women were randomised between September 2007 and June 2010; 1156 to caseload and 1158 to standard care. Response rates to the follow-up questionnaire were 88 and 74%, respectively. Women in the caseload group were more positive about their overall birth experience than women in the standard care group (adjusted odds ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.22-1.84). They also felt more in control during labour, were more proud of themselves, less anxious, and more likely to have a positive experience of pain.Conclusions: Compared with standard maternity care, caseload midwifery may improve women's experiences of childbirth.Tweetable Abstract: Primary midwife-led care ('caseload midwifery') improves women's experiences of childbirth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Australia and internationally, there is concern about the growing proportion of women giving birth by caesarean section. There is evidence of increased risk of placenta accreta and percreta in subsequent pregnancies as well as decreased fertility; and significant resource implications. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of continuity of midwifery care have reported reduced caesareans and other interventions in labour, as well as increased maternal satisfaction, with no statistically significant differences in perinatal morbidity or mortality. RCTs conducted in the UK and in Australia have largely measured the effect of teams of care providers (commonly 6-12 midwives) with very few testing caseload (one-to-one) midwifery care. This study aims to determine whether caseload (one-to-one) midwifery care for women at low risk of medical complications decreases the proportion of women delivering by caesarean section compared with women receiving 'standard' care. This paper presents the trial protocol in detail., Methods/design: A two-arm RCT design will be used. Women who are identified at low medical risk will be recruited from the antenatal booking clinics of a tertiary women's hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Baseline data will be collected, then women randomised to caseload midwifery or standard low risk care. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a designated primary midwife with one or two antenatal visits conducted by a 'back-up' midwife. The midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary. If the woman has an extended labour, or if the primary midwife is unavailable, care will be provided by the back-up midwife. For women allocated to standard care, options include midwifery-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. Data will be collected at recruitment (self administered survey) and at 2 and 6 months postpartum by postal survey. Medical/obstetric outcomes will be abstracted from the medical record. The sample size of 2008 was calculated to identify a decrease in caesarean birth from 19 to 14% and detect a range of other significant clinical differences. Comprehensive process and economic evaluations will be conducted., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012607000073404.

This paper was presented at a Health Conference in March 2007, celebrating the 150th birthday of the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne. It discusses the definition of "normal childbirth", and the pros and cons of three medical technologies: caesarean section, epidural analgesia during labour and routine ultrasound screening during pregnancy, and whether clinical practices, in Australia and Sweden (author is Swedish), in relation to these methods are evidence based. It also discusses the impact of non-scientific reasons, such as anxiety, on clinical decision making.

The aim of this study was to review birth centre practices in Australia. Questionnaires were completed from 22 of 24 centres. Great variations were observed between the centres in clinical practices like number of routine antenatal visits, pattern of medical review, and transfer rates. Definition of low-risk as expressed by booking and transfer criteria also showed great variations, and generally these criteria became more liberal with experience. From 1991 to 1995 there was an average increase of approximately 1,000 bookings per year in the 22 centres taken together. The average transfer rate over the whole period was 22% antepartum and 18% intrapartum. The transfer rates increased slightly over the 5-year period, by 4.8% during pregnancy and 2.5% intrapartum. A majority was optimistic about the future, and estimated that the potential market for birth centres was around 16% compared with the present figure of less than 5%. A general view was that women were not well informed about the birth-centre option.