Midwifery group practice and mode of birth

Michael Beckmann, Sue Kildea, Kristen Gibbons

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Midwifery-led models of care, specifically Midwifery Group Practices (MGPs), have been promoted as one way to address the increasing caesarean rate. Whilst women report a high level of satisfaction, and experience lower rates of induction and epidural analgesia, a Cochrane review reported no differences in mode of birth.

Method: A retrospective cohort study was performed using routinely collected de-identified data of all term births between 2006 and 2010. Outcomes for 1545 women under MGP model were compared with 13,880 women cared for in all other models. Primary outcome measure was unassisted vaginal birth. Predictors investigated were model of care, induction and epidural analgesia. Both bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken (controlling for important confounders) with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) presented.

Findings: Significant differences were demonstrated in the demographic and clinical characteristics of the groups. Compared with those in other models of care, women in MGP care had similar rates of induction but significantly fewer received epidural analgesia (28.4% vs 33.5%; p<. 0.001). There was no difference in the mode of birth. When adjusted for confounders, women in MGP care were no more or less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.92-1.24; p= 0.397), birth assisted by instrument (aOR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86-1.21; p= 0.852) or emergency caesarean section (aOR 0.89; 95% CI 0.74-1.06; p= 0.193). However, in the subgroup of women who did not receive epidural analgesia, women in MGP care had an increased likelihood of an unassisted vaginal birth (aOR 1.29; 95% CI 1.06-1.58; p= 0.013).

Conclusion: Women in MGP care are no more or less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)187-193
Number of pages7
JournalWomen and Birth
Volume25
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Group Practice
Midwifery
Parturition
Epidural Analgesia
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Term Birth
Cesarean Section
Emergencies
Cohort Studies
Multivariate Analysis
Retrospective Studies
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis
Demography
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Cite this

Beckmann, Michael ; Kildea, Sue ; Gibbons, Kristen. / Midwifery group practice and mode of birth. In: Women and Birth. 2012 ; Vol. 25, No. 4. pp. 187-193.
@article{77137a2dc4cd46c7909b1b8dae843edc,
title = "Midwifery group practice and mode of birth",
abstract = "Background: Midwifery-led models of care, specifically Midwifery Group Practices (MGPs), have been promoted as one way to address the increasing caesarean rate. Whilst women report a high level of satisfaction, and experience lower rates of induction and epidural analgesia, a Cochrane review reported no differences in mode of birth. Method: A retrospective cohort study was performed using routinely collected de-identified data of all term births between 2006 and 2010. Outcomes for 1545 women under MGP model were compared with 13,880 women cared for in all other models. Primary outcome measure was unassisted vaginal birth. Predictors investigated were model of care, induction and epidural analgesia. Both bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken (controlling for important confounders) with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95{\%} confidence intervals (CI) presented. Findings: Significant differences were demonstrated in the demographic and clinical characteristics of the groups. Compared with those in other models of care, women in MGP care had similar rates of induction but significantly fewer received epidural analgesia (28.4{\%} vs 33.5{\%}; p<. 0.001). There was no difference in the mode of birth. When adjusted for confounders, women in MGP care were no more or less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth (aOR 1.07; 95{\%} CI 0.92-1.24; p= 0.397), birth assisted by instrument (aOR 1.02; 95{\%} CI 0.86-1.21; p= 0.852) or emergency caesarean section (aOR 0.89; 95{\%} CI 0.74-1.06; p= 0.193). However, in the subgroup of women who did not receive epidural analgesia, women in MGP care had an increased likelihood of an unassisted vaginal birth (aOR 1.29; 95{\%} CI 1.06-1.58; p= 0.013). Conclusion: Women in MGP care are no more or less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth.",
keywords = "Caesarean section, Caseload midwifery, Continuity of care, Model of care",
author = "Michael Beckmann and Sue Kildea and Kristen Gibbons",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.wombi.2011.11.001",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "187--193",
journal = "Women and Birth",
issn = "1871-5192",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

Midwifery group practice and mode of birth. / Beckmann, Michael; Kildea, Sue; Gibbons, Kristen.

In: Women and Birth, Vol. 25, No. 4, 01.12.2012, p. 187-193.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Midwifery group practice and mode of birth

AU - Beckmann, Michael

AU - Kildea, Sue

AU - Gibbons, Kristen

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - Background: Midwifery-led models of care, specifically Midwifery Group Practices (MGPs), have been promoted as one way to address the increasing caesarean rate. Whilst women report a high level of satisfaction, and experience lower rates of induction and epidural analgesia, a Cochrane review reported no differences in mode of birth. Method: A retrospective cohort study was performed using routinely collected de-identified data of all term births between 2006 and 2010. Outcomes for 1545 women under MGP model were compared with 13,880 women cared for in all other models. Primary outcome measure was unassisted vaginal birth. Predictors investigated were model of care, induction and epidural analgesia. Both bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken (controlling for important confounders) with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) presented. Findings: Significant differences were demonstrated in the demographic and clinical characteristics of the groups. Compared with those in other models of care, women in MGP care had similar rates of induction but significantly fewer received epidural analgesia (28.4% vs 33.5%; p<. 0.001). There was no difference in the mode of birth. When adjusted for confounders, women in MGP care were no more or less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.92-1.24; p= 0.397), birth assisted by instrument (aOR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86-1.21; p= 0.852) or emergency caesarean section (aOR 0.89; 95% CI 0.74-1.06; p= 0.193). However, in the subgroup of women who did not receive epidural analgesia, women in MGP care had an increased likelihood of an unassisted vaginal birth (aOR 1.29; 95% CI 1.06-1.58; p= 0.013). Conclusion: Women in MGP care are no more or less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth.

AB - Background: Midwifery-led models of care, specifically Midwifery Group Practices (MGPs), have been promoted as one way to address the increasing caesarean rate. Whilst women report a high level of satisfaction, and experience lower rates of induction and epidural analgesia, a Cochrane review reported no differences in mode of birth. Method: A retrospective cohort study was performed using routinely collected de-identified data of all term births between 2006 and 2010. Outcomes for 1545 women under MGP model were compared with 13,880 women cared for in all other models. Primary outcome measure was unassisted vaginal birth. Predictors investigated were model of care, induction and epidural analgesia. Both bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis was undertaken (controlling for important confounders) with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) presented. Findings: Significant differences were demonstrated in the demographic and clinical characteristics of the groups. Compared with those in other models of care, women in MGP care had similar rates of induction but significantly fewer received epidural analgesia (28.4% vs 33.5%; p<. 0.001). There was no difference in the mode of birth. When adjusted for confounders, women in MGP care were no more or less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.92-1.24; p= 0.397), birth assisted by instrument (aOR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86-1.21; p= 0.852) or emergency caesarean section (aOR 0.89; 95% CI 0.74-1.06; p= 0.193). However, in the subgroup of women who did not receive epidural analgesia, women in MGP care had an increased likelihood of an unassisted vaginal birth (aOR 1.29; 95% CI 1.06-1.58; p= 0.013). Conclusion: Women in MGP care are no more or less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth.

KW - Caesarean section

KW - Caseload midwifery

KW - Continuity of care

KW - Model of care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84869869461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.wombi.2011.11.001

DO - 10.1016/j.wombi.2011.11.001

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 187

EP - 193

JO - Women and Birth

JF - Women and Birth

SN - 1871-5192

IS - 4

ER -