3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Can birth outcome inequality be reduced using targeted caseload midwifery in a deprived diverse inner city population? A retrospective cohort study, London, UK

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          (1) To report maternal and newborn outcomes of pregnant women in areas of social deprivation in inner city London. (2) To compare the effect of caseload midwifery with standard care on maternal and newborn outcomes in this cohort of women.

          Design

          Retrospective observational cohort study.

          Setting

          Four council wards (electoral districts) in inner city London, where over 90% of residents are in the two most deprived quintiles of the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) (2019) and the population is ethnically diverse.

          Participants

          All women booked for antenatal care under Guys and St Thomas’ National Health Service Foundation Trust after 11 July 2018 (when the Lambeth Early Action Partnership (LEAP*) caseload midwifery team was implemented) until data collection 18 June 2020. This included 523 pregnancies in the LEAP area, of which 230 were allocated to caseload midwifery, and 8430 pregnancies from other areas.

          Main outcome measures

          To explore if targeted caseload midwifery (known to reduce preterm birth) will improve important measurable outcomes (preterm birth, mode of birth and newborn outcomes).

          Results

          There was a significant reduction in preterm birth rate in women allocated to caseload midwifery, when compared with those who received traditional midwifery care (5.1% vs 11.2%; risk ratio: 0.41; p=0.02; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86; number needed to treat: 11.9). Caesarean section births were significantly reduced in women allocated to caseload midwifery care, when compared with traditional midwifery care (24.3% vs 38.0%; risk ratio: 0.64: p=0.01; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.90; number needed to treat: 7.4) including emergency caesarean deliveries (15.2% vs 22.5%; risk ratio: 0.59; p=0.03; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94; number needed to treat: 10) without increase in neonatal unit admission or stillbirth.

          Conclusion

          This study shows that a model of caseload midwifery care implemented in an inner city deprived community improves outcome by significantly reducing preterm birth and birth by caesarean section when compared with traditional care. This data trend suggests that when applied to targeted groups (women in higher IMD quintile and women of diverse ethnicity) that the impact of intervention is greater.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children

          The Lancet, 392(10155), 1349-1357
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

            Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improvement of maternal and newborn health through midwifery.

              In the concluding paper of this Series about midwifery, we look at the policy implications from the framework for quality maternal and newborn care, the potential effect of life-saving interventions that fall within the scope of practice of midwives, and the historic sequence of health system changes that made a reduction in maternal mortality possible in countries that have expanded their midwifery workforce. Achievement of better health outcomes for women and newborn infants is possible, but needs improvements in the quality of reproductive, maternal, and newborn care, alongside necessary increases in universal coverage. In this report, we propose three priority research areas and outline how national investment in midwives and in their work environment, education, regulation, and management can improve quality of care. Midwifery and midwives are crucial to the achievement of national and international goals and targets in reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health; now and beyond 2015.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2021
                1 November 2021
                : 11
                : 11
                : e049991
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Women’s Health , Guy’s and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Women and Children’s Health , King’s College London , London, UK
                [3 ]King’s College London School of Medicine , London, UK
                [4 ]departmentPublic Health , National Childrens Bureau , London, UK
                [5 ]Lambeth Early Action Partnership , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Ruth Hadebe; ruth.hadebe@ 123456nhs.net
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4020-8933
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7904-7933
                Article
                bmjopen-2021-049991
                10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049991
                8562498
                34725078
                9a09e2c7-875c-47b5-baae-1ab0528c2165
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 09 February 2021
                : 13 September 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013529, National Lottery Community Fund;
                Award ID: N/A- not a direct funder of study
                Categories
                Obstetrics and Gynaecology
                1506
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                obstetrics,health policy,public health
                Medicine
                obstetrics, health policy, public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article