Maternal satisfaction with group care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This review examined the quantitative relationship between group care and overall maternal satisfaction compared with standard individual care. DATA SOURCES: We searched CINAHL, Clinical Trials, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from the beginning of 2003 through June 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that reported the association between overall maternal satisfaction and centering-based perinatal care where the control group was standard individual care. We included randomized and observational designs. METHODS: Screening and independent data extraction were carried out by 4 researchers. We extracted data on study characteristics, population, design, intervention characteristics, satisfaction measurement, and outcome. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane tools for Clinical Trials (RoB2) and observational studies (ROBINS-I). We summarized the study, intervention, and satisfaction measurement characteristics. We presented the effect estimates of each study descriptively using a forest plot without performing an overall meta-analysis. Meta-analysis could not be performed because of variations in study designs and methods used to measure satisfaction. We presented studies reporting mean values and odds ratios in 2 separate plots. The presentation of studies in forest plots was organized by type of study design. RESULTS: A total of 7685 women participated in the studies included in the review. We found that most studies (ie, 17/20) report higher satisfaction with group care than standard individual care. Some of the noted results are lower satisfaction with group care in both studies in Sweden and 1 of the 2 studies from Canada. Higher satisfaction was present in 14 of 15 studies reporting CenteringPregnancy, Group Antenatal Care (1 study), and Adapted CenteringPregnancy (1 study). Although indicative of higher maternal satisfaction, the results are often based on statistically insignificant effect estimates with wide confidence intervals derived from small sample sizes. CONCLUSION: The evidence confirms higher maternal satisfaction with group care than with standard care. This likely reflects group care methodology, which combines clinical assessment, facilitated health promotion discussion, and community-building opportunities. This evidence will be helpful for the implementation of group care globally.

Caesarean sections in teaching hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis of hospitals in 22 countries.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the odds of caesarean section in all births in teaching hospitals as compared with non-teaching hospitals. SETTING: Over 3600 teaching and non-teaching hospitals in 22 countries. We searched CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, sciELO, Scopus and Web of Science from the beginning of records until May 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Women at birth. Over 18.5 million births. INTERVENTION: Caesarean section. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures are the adjusted OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons. The secondary outcome is the crude OR of caesarean section in a variety of teaching hospital comparisons. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, we found that university hospitals have lower odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78) and other teaching hospitals (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89), and no significant difference with unspecified teaching status hospitals (OR=0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, τ2=0.009). Other teaching hospitals had higher odds than non-teaching hospitals (OR=1.23, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.35). Comparison between unspecified teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.65, τ2=1.007) and unspecified hospitals (OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20), τ2<0.001) showed no significant difference. While the main analysis in larger sized groups of analysed studies reveals no effect between hospitals, subgroup analyses show that teaching hospitals carry out fewer caesarean sections in several countries, for several study populations and population characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: With smaller sample of participants and studies, in clearly defined hospitals categories under comparison, we see that university hospitals have lower odds for caesarean. With larger sample size and number of studies, as well as less clearly defined categories of hospitals, we see no significant difference in the likelihood of caesarean sections between teaching and non-teaching hospitals. Nevertheless, even in groups with no significant effect, teaching hospitals have a lower or higher likelihood of caesarean sections in several analysed subgroups. Therefore, we recommend a more precise examination of forces sustaining these trends. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020158437.

Cesarean Delivery and Gender of Delivering Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of the gender of the delivering physician and the odds of performing cesarean delivery. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science from the first year of records through May 2020. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that reported odds ratios (OR), or data allowing the calculation of ORs, for cesarean delivery performed by female and male delivering physicians. We also included studies that reported the preference of physicians for performing cesarean deliveries. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Independent data extraction was carried out by at least two researchers. Standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis was used to generate overall ORs. Finally, in two separate meta-analyses, we analyzed 15 studies containing clinical data for 1,269,625 births, and 11 studies containing data for the preference for delivery mode of 4,911 obstetricians. Both the crude and adjusted odds of a cesarean delivery were lower for those performed by female physicians (crude OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.84, τ=0.029, adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.85, τ=0.031). We also found that female physicians had a lower preference for cesarean delivery in both crude and adjusted analysis (crude OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.96, I=77%, adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40-0.84, I=67%). CONCLUSION: Female physicians are less likely to perform cesarean delivery and less likely to prefer it. This was observed across different health systems and populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42020158442.