Search

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the value of maternity health care - the relationship of outcomes to costs - in Queensland during 2012-18. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study; analysis of Queensland Perinatal Data Collection data linked with the Queensland Health Admitted Patient, Non-Admitted Patient, and Emergency Data Collections, and with the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) databases. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: All births in Queensland during 1 July 2012 - 30 June 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternity care costs per birth (reported in 2021-22 Australian dollars), both overall and by funder type (public hospital funders, MBS, PBS, private health insurers, out-of-pocket costs); value of care, defined as total cost per positive birth outcome (composite measure). RESULTS: The mean cost per birth (all funders) increased from $20 471 (standard deviation [SD], $17 513) during the second half of 2012 to $30 000 (SD, $22 323) during the first half of 2018; the annual total costs for all births increased from $1.31 billion to $1.84 billion, despite a slight decline in the total number of births. In a mixed effects linear analysis adjusted for demographic, clinical, and birth characteristics, the mean total cost per birth in the second half of 2018 was $9493 higher (99.9% confidence interval, $8930-10 056) than during the first half of 2012. The proportion of births that did not satisfy our criteria for a positive birth outcome increased from 27.1% (8404 births) during the second half of 2012 to 30.5% (9041 births) during the first half of 2018. CONCLUSION: The costs of maternity care have increased in Queensland, and many adverse birth outcomes have become more frequent. Broad clinical collaboration, effective prevention and treatment strategies, as well as maternal health services focused on all dimensions of value, are needed to ensure the quality and viability of maternity care in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Despite strong evidence of benefits and increasing consumer demand for homebirth, Australia has failed to effectively upscale it. To promote the adoption and expansion of homebirth in the public health care system, policymakers require quantifiable results to evaluate its economic value. To date, there has been limited evaluation of the financial impact of birth settings for women at low risk of pregnancy complications. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the difference in inpatient costs around birth between offering homebirth in the public maternity system versus not offering public homebirth to selected women who meet low-risk pregnancy criteria. METHODS: We used a whole-of-population linked administrative dataset containing all women who gave birth in Queensland (one Australian State) between 01/07/2012 and 30/06/2018 where publicly funded homebirth is not currently offered. We created a static microsimulation model to compare the inpatient cost difference for mother and baby around birth based on the women who gave birth between 01/07/2017 and 30/06/2018 (n = 36,314). The model comprised of a base model - representing standard public hospital care, and a counterfactual model - representing a hypothetical scenario where 5 % of women who gave birth in public hospitals planned to give birth at home prior to the onset of labour (n = 1816). Costs were reported in 2021/22 AUD. RESULTS: In our hypothetical scenario, after considering the effect of assumptive place and mode of birth for these planned homebirths, the estimated State-level inpatient cost saving around birth (summed for mother and babies) per pregnancy were: AU$303.13 (to Queensland public hospitals) and AU$186.94 (to Queensland public hospital funders). This calculates to a total cost saving per annum of AU$11 million (to Queensland public hospitals) and AU$6.8 million (to Queensland public hospital funders). CONCLUSION: A considerable amount of inpatient health care costs around birth cou

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend intrapartum cardiotocograph (CTG) monitoring for women at risk for poor perinatal outcome. Research has not previously addressed how midwives and obstetricians enable or hinder women's decision-making regarding intrapartum fetal monitoring and how this work is structured by external organising factors. AIM: To examine impacts of policy and research texts on midwives' and obstetricians' work with labouring women related to intrapartum fetal monitoring decision-making. METHODS: We used a critical feminist qualitative methodology known as Institutional Ethnography (IE). The research was conducted in an Australian tertiary maternity service. Data collection included interviews, observation, and texts relating to midwives' and obstetricians' work with the fetal monitoring system. Textual mapping was used to explain how midwives' and obstetricians' work was organised to happen the way it was. FINDINGS: CTG monitoring was initiated predominantly by midwives applying mandatory policy. Midwives described reluctance to inform labouring women that they had a choice of fetal monitoring method. Discursive approaches used in a national fetal surveillance guideline, a Cochrane systematic review, and the largest randomised controlled trial regarding CTG monitoring in labour generated and reproduced assumptions that clinicians, not labouring women, were the appropriate decision-maker regarding fetal monitoring in labour. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Guidelines structured midwives' and obstetricians' work in a manner that undermined women's participation in decisions about fetal monitoring method. Intrapartum fetal monitoring guidelines should be critically reviewed to ensure they encourage and enable midwives and obstetricians to support women to make decisions about intrapartum care.

OBJECTIVE: Whether women's preferences for maternity care are informed remains unclear, suggesting that maternal preferences may not accurately represent what women truly want. The aim of this study was to understand and critique research on women's maternity care preferences published since 2010. DESIGN: Systematic mixed studies review. CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health electronic databases were searched from January 2010 to April 2022. FINDINGS: Thirty-five articles were included. Models of care and mode of birth were the most frequently investigated preference topics. Roughly three-quarters of included studies employed a quantitative design. Few studies assessed women's baseline knowledge regarding the aspects of maternity care investigated, and three provided information to help inform women's maternity care preferences. Over 85% of studies involved women who were either pregnant at the time of investigation or had previously given birth, and 71% employed study designs where women were required to select from pre-determined response options to describe their preferences. Two studies asked women about their preferences in the face of unlimited access and availability to specific maternity care services. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Limited provision of supporting information, the predominant inclusion of women with experience using maternity care services, and limited use of mixed methods may have hindered the collection of accurate information from women about their preferences. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Women's maternity care preferences research since 2010 may only present a limited version of what they want.