Midwifery group practice and mode of birth

Beckmann, Michael, Kildea, Sue and Gibbons, Kristen (2012) Midwifery group practice and mode of birth. Women and Birth, 25 4: 187-193. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2011.11.001

Author Beckmann, Michael
Kildea, Sue
Gibbons, Kristen
Title Midwifery group practice and mode of birth
Journal name Women and Birth   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1871-5192
Publication date 2012-12
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.wombi.2011.11.001
Open Access Status
Volume 25
Issue 4
Start page 187
End page 193
Total pages 7
Place of publication Amsterdam, Netherlands
Publisher Elsevier
Language eng
Formatted abstract
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.

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.

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).

Women in MGP care are no more or less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth.
Keyword Model of care
Caesarean section
Caseload midwifery
Continuity of care
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 2 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 26 Aug 2014, 14:04:56 EST by Vicki Percival on behalf of School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work