Search

Objective: The Ringing Up About Breastfeeding earlY (RUBY) randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that a telephone-based peer volunteer support intervention increased breast-feeding duration in a setting with high breast-feeding initiation. This sub-study of the RUBY RCT describes the motivation, preparation and experiences of volunteers who provided the peer support intervention.Design: An online survey was completed by 154 (67 %) volunteers after ceasing volunteering.Setting: Volunteers provided peer support to primiparous women (n 574) who birthed at one of three public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia, between February 2013 and December 2015.Participants: Volunteers (n 230) had themselves breastfed for at least 6 months and received 4 h of training for the role.Results: The median number of mothers supported was two (range 1-11), and two-thirds of respondents supported at least one mother for 6 months. Volunteers were motivated by a strong desire to support new mothers to establish and continue breast-feeding. Most (93 %) considered the training session adequate. The majority (60 %) reported following the call schedule 'most of the time', but many commented that 'it depends on the mother'. Overall, 84 % of volunteers were satisfied with the role and reported that the experience was enjoyable (85 %) and worthwhile (90 %). Volunteers agreed that telephone support for breast-feeding was valued by women (88 %) and that the programme would be effective in helping women to breastfeed (93 %).Conclusions: These findings are important for those developing similar peer support programmes in which recruiting volunteers and developing training requirements are an integral and recurrent part of volunteer management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The 'Ringing Up about Breastfeeding earlY' (RUBY) randomised controlled trial showed increased breastfeeding at 6 months in participants who received the proactive telephone-based peer support breastfeeding intervention compared with participants allocated to receive standard care and supports. The present study aimed to evaluate if the intervention was cost-effective., Design: A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis., Setting: Three metropolitan maternity services in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia., Participants: First time mothers intending to breastfeed their infant (1152) and peer volunteers (246)., Intervention: The intervention comprised proactive telephone-based support from a peer volunteer from early postpartum up to 6 months. Participants were allocated to usual care (n=578) or the intervention (n=574)., Main Outcome Measures: Costs during a 6-month follow-up period including individual healthcare, breastfeeding support and intervention costs in all participants, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio., Results: Costs per mother supported were valued at $263.75 (or $90.33 excluding costs of donated volunteer time). There was no difference between the two arms in costs for infant and mothers in healthcare and breastfeeding support costs. These figures result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4146 ($1393 if volunteer time excluded) per additional mother breast feeding at 6 months., Conclusion: Considering the significant improvement in breastfeeding outcomes, this intervention is potentially cost-effective. These findings, along with the high value placed on the intervention by women and peer volunteers provides robust evidence to upscale the implementation of this intervention., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12612001024831., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: There are a wide variety of information sources available during pregnancy and the early parenting period, but limited understanding of their usefulness, particularly for partners. We explored the views of both women and their partners regarding sources of information, their frequency of use, and their preferred formats., Design and Setting: Data were collected as part of a large cluster randomised controlled trial at a tertiary maternity hospital in 2015-2016, in Melbourne, Australia. The overall evaluation was of a parenting kit ('Growing Together'), an evidence-based information source for prospective and new parents covering the period from conception until one year postpartum. This paper uses data collected from women when their baby was two months of age, and women's partners when the baby was six months of age, via postal or online survey., Participants: Women were eligible if they booked for pregnancy care at The Royal Women's Hospital during the recruitment period, were having their first baby, able to read and speak English without an interpreter, and <30 weeks pregnant at their first hospital appointment (n = 1034). All eligible women were included unless they opted out., Measurements and Findings: In total 92 women were excluded. Of the women sent the two-month survey, 42% (392/941) responded. Partner surveys were returned by 252/791 partners (32%). Respondents received information from a range of sources, most frequently face to face from health professionals through childbirth education or midwife discussion/education, followed by friends and family members. Information received from a health professional was also reported as being the most useful. For both women and their partners, the most important factor related to information was that it was from a trusted and reliable source., Key Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Women and their partners highlighted the importance of quality and access to evidence based resources and information. The internet is frequently favoured by women and their partners due to its convenience, accessibility, and timely access to information. Overall, women and their partners reported information directly from a health care professional to be the most useful and health services should ensure that women and their partners have adequate access to their health care professional., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2015 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: To determine whether primary midwife care (caseload midwifery) decreases the caesarean section rate compared with standard maternity care., 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 received antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a primary midwife with some care by 'back-up' midwives. Women randomised to standard care received either midwifery or obstetric-trainee care with varying levels of continuity, or community-based general practitioner care., Primary Outcome: caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included instrumental vaginal births, analgesia, perineal trauma, induction of labour, infant admission to special/neonatal intensive care, gestational age, Apgar scores and birthweight., Results: In total 2314 women were randomised-1156 to caseload and 1158 to standard care. Women allocated to caseload were less likely to have a caesarean section (19.4% versus 24.9%; risk ratio [RR] 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91; P = 0.001); more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (63.0% versus 55.7%; RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06-1.21; P < 0.001); less likely to have epidural analgesia (30.5% versus 34.6%; RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.996; P = 0.04) and less likely to have an episiotomy (23.1% versus 29.4%; RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67-0.92; P = 0.003). Infants of women allocated to caseload were less likely to be admitted to special or neonatal intensive care (4.0% versus 6.4%; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.44-0.90; P = 0.01). No infant outcomes favoured standard care., Conclusion: In settings with a relatively high baseline caesarean section rate, caseload midwifery for women at low obstetric risk in early pregnancy shows promise for reducing caesarean births., (© 2012 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2012 RCOG.)