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

BACKGROUND: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.

Effects of Integrating Family Planning With Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Services on Uptake of Voluntary Modern Contraceptive Methods in Rural Pakistan: Protocol for a Quasi-experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: The uptake of modern contraceptive methods (MCMs) remains low, with 25% of women reporting their use in Pakistan. The overarching interventions covering service delivery platforms at facility and community levels necessitate the integration of family planning (FP) with maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) services. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of an integrated FP-MNCH service delivery model to increase coverage of MCMs in rural Pakistan. Moreover, we aim to measure the level of effectiveness of interventions regarding the uptake of MCMs. METHODS: A quasi-experimental, sequential, mixed methods study design with pre- and postevaluation will be adopted to evaluate the impact of integration of FP with MNCH services. The interventions include the following: (1) capacity strengthening of health care providers, including technical trainings; training in counseling of women who attend immunization centers, antenatal care (ANC) clinics, and postnatal care (PNC) clinics; and provision of job aids; (2) counseling of women and girls attending ANC, PNC, and pediatric clinics; (3) ensuring sustained provision of supplies and commodities; (4) community engagement, including establishing adolescent-friendly spaces; and (5) use of District Health Information System data in decision-making. Descriptive statistics will be used to estimate prevalence (ie, proportions) and frequencies of outcome indicators. A univariate difference-in-difference analytical approach will be used to estimate the effect of the interventions. In addition, a Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition analysis will be conducted to identify and quantify determinants of the modern contraceptive prevalence rate. RESULTS: The intervention phase began in July 2021 and will run until June 2022. The impact assessment will be conducted from July to September 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This project will evaluate the impact of integrating FP with MNCH services. Furthermore, this study will identify the drivers and barriers in uptake of MCMs and will simultaneously help in modifying the interventional strategies that can be scaled up through existing service delivery platforms within the public and private sectors, according to the local sociocultural and health system context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05045599; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05045599. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35291.

The importance of nutrition in pregnancy and lactation: lifelong consequences.

Most women in the United States do not meet the recommendations for healthful nutrition and weight before and during pregnancy. Women and providers often ask what a healthy diet for a pregnant woman should look like. The message should be "eat better, not more." This can be achieved by basing diet on a variety of nutrient-dense, whole foods, including fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, healthy fats with omega-3 fatty acids that include nuts and seeds, and fish, in place of poorer quality highly processed foods. Such a diet embodies nutritional density and is less likely to be accompanied by excessive energy intake than the standard American diet consisting of increased intakes of processed foods, fatty red meat, and sweetened foods and beverages. Women who report "prudent" or "health-conscious" eating patterns before and/or during pregnancy may have fewer pregnancy complications and adverse child health outcomes. Comprehensive nutritional supplementation (multiple micronutrients plus balanced protein energy) among women with inadequate nutrition has been associated with improved birth outcomes, including decreased rates of low birthweight. A diet that severely restricts any macronutrient class should be avoided, specifically the ketogenic diet that lacks carbohydrates, the Paleo diet because of dairy restriction, and any diet characterized by excess saturated fats. User-friendly tools to facilitate a quick evaluation of dietary patterns with clear guidance on how to address dietary inadequacies and embedded support from trained healthcare providers are urgently needed. Recent evidence has shown that although excessive gestational weight gain predicts adverse perinatal outcomes among women with normal weight, the degree of prepregnancy obesity predicts adverse perinatal outcomes to a greater degree than gestational weight gain among women with obesity. Furthermore, low body mass index and insufficient gestational weight gain are associated with poor perinatal outcomes. Observational data have shown that first-trimester gain is the strongest predictor of adverse outcomes. Interventions beginning in early pregnancy or preconception are needed to prevent downstream complications for mothers and their children. For neonates, human milk provides personalized nutrition and is associated with short- and long-term health benefits for infants and mothers. Eating a healthy diet is a way for lactating mothers to support optimal health for themselves and their infants.

Young women's and midwives' perspectives on improving nutritional support in pregnancy: The babies, eating, and LifestyLe in adolescence (BELLA) study.

RATIONALE: Teenage pregnancy has a high risk of poor outcomes for both mother and baby. Teenage girls have the poorest diets of any population group in the UK, which compounds the risk of poor pregnancy outcomes. Pregnant teenagers trust advice from their midwives, but midwives feel they do not have time, confidence, or knowledge to discuss nutrition. OBJECTIVE: This study examined how the relationship between pregnant teenagers and their midwives could be utilised to deliver support to improve diet quality. METHOD: Qualitative interviews were conducted across three urban sites in the UK: Manchester, Doncaster, and Southampton with adolescent mothers and their midwives regarding diet and lifestyle, and what form of support would be helpful. In total, 106 young women and 20 midwives were interviewed. Most of the young mothers were 19 or younger (67%). Half had had their first child in the past year (52%) and 21% were pregnant during the study. Thematic analysis was used to identify ways to better support young mothers to eat well. RESULTS: Young women found it difficult to prioritise healthy eating; they often felt isolated and not in control of their own lives and wanted support from their midwife. Midwives felt that it was their role to support young mothers with diet in pregnancy but were anxious about initiating conversations and felt they lacked clear guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant teenagers and their midwives lack reliable resources and strategies for healthy eating support. An effective intervention to improve pregnant teenagers' diet quality must empower, inform, and motivate young mothers and their midwives, and enable connections between young mothers.

Antioxidants for preventing and reducing muscle soreness after exercise: a Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether antioxidant supplements and antioxidant-enriched foods can prevent or reduce delayed-onset muscle soreness after exercise. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, trial registers, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings up to February 2017. RESULTS: In total, 50 studies were included in this review which included a total of 1089 participants (961 were male and 128 were female) with an age range of 16-55 years. All studies used an antioxidant dosage higher than the recommended daily amount. The majority of trials (47) had design features that carried a high risk of bias due to selective reporting and poorly described allocation concealment, potentially limiting the reliability of their findings. We rescaled to a 0-10 cm scale in order to quantify the actual difference between groups and we found that the 95% CIs for all five follow-up times were all well below the minimal important difference of 1.4 cm: up to 6 hours (MD -0.52, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.08); at 24 hours (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.07); at 48 hours (mean difference (MD) -0.41, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12); at 72 hours (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.02); and at 96 hours (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.37). Thus, the effect sizes suggesting less muscle soreness with antioxidant supplementation were very unlikely to equate to meaningful or important differences in practice. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate to low-quality evidence that high-dose antioxidant supplementation does not result in a clinically relevant reduction of muscle soreness after exercise of up to 6 hours or at 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours after exercise. There is no evidence available on subjective recovery and only limited evidence on the adverse effects of taking antioxidant supplements.

Antioxidants for preventing and reducing muscle soreness after exercise.

BACKGROUND: Muscle soreness typically occurs after intense exercise, unaccustomed exercise or actions that involve eccentric contractions where the muscle lengthens while under tension. It peaks between 24 and 72 hours after the initial bout of exercise. Many people take antioxidant supplements or antioxidant-enriched foods before and after exercise in the belief that these will prevent or reduce muscle soreness after exercise. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of antioxidant supplements and antioxidant-enriched foods for preventing and reducing the severity and duration of delayed onset muscle soreness following exercise. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, trial registers, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings up to February 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of all forms of antioxidant supplementation including specific antioxidant supplements (e.g. tablets, powders, concentrates) and antioxidant-enriched foods or diets on preventing or reducing delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). We excluded studies where antioxidant supplementation was combined with another supplement. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results, assessed risk of bias and extracted data from included trials using a pre-piloted form. Where appropriate, we pooled results of comparable trials, generally using the random-effects model. The outcomes selected for presentation in the 'Summary of findings' table were muscle soreness, collected at times up to 6 hours, 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours post-exercise, subjective recovery and adverse effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty randomised, placebo-controlled trials were included, 12 of which used a cross-over design. Of the 1089 participants, 961 (88.2%) were male and 128 (11.8%) were female. The age range for participants was between 16 and 55 years and training status varied from sedentary to moderately trained. The trials were heterogeneous, including the timing (pre-exercise or post-exercise), frequency, dose, duration and type of antioxidant supplementation, and the type of preceding exercise. All studies used an antioxidant dosage higher than the recommended daily amount. The majority of trials (47) had design features that carried a high risk of bias due to selective reporting and poorly described allocation concealment, potentially limiting the reliability of their findings.We tested only one comparison: antioxidant supplements versus control (placebo). No studies compared high-dose versus low-dose, where the low-dose supplementation was within normal or recommended levels for the antioxidant involved.Pooled results for muscle soreness indicated a small difference in favour of antioxidant supplementation after DOMS-inducing exercise at all main follow-ups: up to 6 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.04; 525 participants, 21 studies; low-quality evidence); at 24 hours (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; 936 participants, 41 studies; moderate-quality evidence); at 48 hours (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.07; 1047 participants, 45 studies; low-quality evidence); at 72 hours (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.00; 657 participants, 28 studies; moderate-quality evidence), and little difference at 96 hours (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.19; 436 participants, 17 studies; low-quality evidence). When we rescaled to a 0 to 10 cm scale in order to quantify the actual difference between groups, we found that the 95% CIs for all five follow-up times were all well below the minimal important difference of 1.4 cm: up to 6 hours (MD -0.52, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.08); at 24 hours (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.07); at 48 hours (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12); at 72 hours (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.02); and at 96 hours (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.37). Thus, the effect sizes suggesting less muscle soreness with antioxidant supplementation were very unlikely to equate to meaningful or important differences in practice. Neither of our subgroup analyses to examine for differences in effect according to type of DOMS-inducing exercise (mechanical versus whole body aerobic) or according to funding source confirmed subgroup differences. Sensitivity analyses excluding cross-over trials showed that their inclusion had no important impact on results.None of the 50 included trials measured subjective recovery (return to previous activities without signs or symptoms).There is very little evidence regarding the potential adverse effects of taking antioxidant supplements as this outcome was reported in only nine trials (216 participants). From the studies that did report adverse effects, two of the nine trials found adverse effects. All six participants in the antioxidant group of one trial had diarrhoea and four of these also had mild indigestion; these are well-known side effects of the particular antioxidant used in this trial. One of 26 participants in a second trial had mild gastrointestinal distress. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate to low-quality evidence that high dose antioxidant supplementation does not result in a clinically relevant reduction of muscle soreness after exercise at up to 6 hours or at 24, 48, 72 and 96 hours after exercise. There is no evidence available on subjective recovery and only limited evidence on the adverse effects of taking antioxidant supplements. The findings of, and messages from, this review provide an opportunity for researchers and other stakeholders to come together and consider what are the priorities, and underlying justifications, for future research in this area.

Nutrient intakes and nutritional biomarkers in pregnant adolescents: a systematic review of studies in developed countries.

BACKGROUND: Babies born to adolescent mothers have been shown to have poorer outcomes compared to those born to adults. Nutritional status may have an important role to play in improving the health of pregnant adolescents; however there is a lack of evidence regarding the adequacy of adolescent diets during pregnancy. This systematic review aims to examine what is known about the nutritional status of adolescent pregnant women. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature identified 21 studies which met the inclusion criteria for the review. Primary research papers using any methods were included where they were published in English between January 1995 and May 2015 and included measurements of nutrient intakes or biological markers of nutritional status in pregnant women aged 11-19 years. Individual study data was first summarised narratively before study means were pooled to give an estimate of nutritional status in the population. RESULTS: The results show that individual studies reported intakes of energy, fibre and a number of key micronutrients which were below recommended levels. Biological markers of iron and selenium status also showed cause for concern. Pooled analysis of individual means as a percentage of UK Dietary Reference Intakes showed intakes of vitamin D (34.8 % CI 0-83.1) to be significantly below recommendations (p = 0.05). Serum selenium levels were also found to be low (61.8 µg/L, CI 39-84). CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified a number of areas where the nutritional status of pregnant adolescents is sub-optimal, which may have implications for the health of adolescent mothers and their babies. It was not however possible to examine the impact of supplement use or socio-demographic characteristics which limits the interpretation these results. Further work is needed to establish the characteristics of those most at risk within this population, how this differs from adult pregnant women and the role of supplementation in achieving adequate nutrition.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e., regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = 8; high quality) and less overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = 4), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss/neonatal death before 24 weeks (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = 7), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = 3) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = 7). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss or neonatal death more than or equal to 24 weeks, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and overall fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.

Management of third stage labour following vaginal birth in Iran: a survey of current policies.

OBJECTIVE: this study was aimed to provide information on policies for the practice of managing the third stage of labour in Iran, including discussion of related systematic evidence. DESIGN: this survey used a standard questionnaire to obtain information about prevention and early treatment of postpartum haemorrhage from all geographical areas in Iran, in 2010. SETTING: the survey included maternity units from 23 provinces, covering 129 out of a total of 560 maternity units in Iran. PARTICIPANTS: at least one public hospital, one private hospital and one rural birth facility unit were included from each province. Questionnaires were completed by the unit's senior midwife with support from the unit's lead obstetrician. FINDINGS: all the units who were approached responded to the study including 69 public hospitals, 32 private hospitals and 28 rural birth facility units. The rate of active management of the third stage of labour was 57 per cent, although answers to individual components of management indicated a higher rate for active interventions than expectant management. Ninety-four per cent of the responding centres indicated oxytocin administration, 71 per cent apply early cord clamping and 65 per cent apply controlled cord traction. A lack of standard definition for postpartum haemorrhage was reported in 18 per cent of units. KEY CONCLUSIONS: a high rate of active management was reported in Iran with variation in its different components which is in line with the international findings. These policies were mainly congruent with the existing systematic evidence except for timing of cord clamping. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: there is a need for improvement in locally sensitive policy development, continuing education, establishing accurate auditing systems and ensuring access to facilities such as blood banks and products in rural units. Efforts to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity and investigations into their causes should be extended to factors beyond the third stage of labour care clinical components.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 January 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors evaluated methodological quality. Two review authors checked data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials involving 16,242 women. Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.90), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92), and instrumental birth (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96), and were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.08), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.83, 95% CI 4.15 to 14.80), and a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (hours) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births (average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02).Women who were randomised to receive midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience preterm birth (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.94) and fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99), although there were no differences in fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.51) or in overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in the midwifery-led continuity care model. Similarly there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most women should be offered midwife-led continuity models of care and women should be encouraged to ask for this option although caution should be exercised in applying this advice to women with substantial medical or obstetric complications.

Organisation of maternity care and choices of mode of birth: a worldwide view.

Drawing on the findings from a Cochrane systematic review of midwife-led care vs. other models of maternity care, this article discusses maternity organisation of care, women's choice of mode of birth and a global trend in reducing normality of childbirth. The review included 11 trials involving 12,276 women. The results showed that women who received models of midwife led care were less likely to experience fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation, less likely to have regional analgesia, less likely to have instrumental birth, less likely to have an episiotomy (with no significant differences in perineal lacerations), and were more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife, more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth, initiate breast feeding and more stated to feel in control. In addition, their babies were more likely to have a shorter length of hospital stay. No statistically significant differences were observed in fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks or in overall fetal/neonatal death between women who were allocated to the midwifery led care and those in the medical led care. In light of these findings, the interrelationship between social organisation of maternity care, philosophy of care and choice is explored using case examples with high and low rates of caesarean section rates. A worldwide overview of vaginal birth and caesarean section rates as indicators of normality (and lack of it) is also presented. Questions are raised with regard to the fast growing rate of caesarean section rates particularly among middle income countries. The rate of caesarean section is twice as much in private settings compared to public hospitals in these countries. In conclusion, the importance of sharing good practice among countries with particular attention to social location of midwifery, mobilisation of consumer groups as well as education of maternity health-care professionals and women, in facilitation of an effective 'informed choice', is highlighted. Areas for further global research on factors, which may influence women's choice of mode of birth are debated.

Improving quality and safety in maternity care: the contribution of midwife-led care.

This article draws on findings from a recent Cochrane systematic review of midwife-led care and discusses its contribution to the safety and quality of women's care in the domains of safety, effectiveness, woman-centeredness, and efficiency. According to the Cochrane review, women who received models of midwife-led care were nearly eight times more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife, were 21% less likely to experience fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation, 19% less likely to have regional analgesia, 14% less likely to have instrumental birth, 18% less likely to have an episiotomy, and significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth, initiate breastfeeding, and feel in control. In addition to normalizing and humanizing birth, the contribution of midwife-led care to the quality and safety of health care is substantial. The implications are that policymakers who wish to improve the quality and safety of maternal and infant care, particularly around normalizing and humanizing birth, should consider midwife-led models of care and how financing of midwife-led services can support this. Suggestions for future research include exploring why fetal loss is reduced under 24 weeks' gestation in midwife-led models of care, and ensuring that the effectiveness of midwife-led models of care on mothers' and infants' health and well-being are assessed in the longer postpartum period.

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

BACKGROUND: 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 and other models of care. OBJECTIVES: To compare midwife-led models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2008), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's Trials Register (January 2008), Current Contents (1994 to January 2008), CINAHL (1982 to August 2006), Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, ISI Proceedings, (1990 to 2008), and the WHO Reproductive Health Library, No. 9. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led or other models of care during pregnancy, and where care is provided during the ante- and intrapartum period in the midwife-led model. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All authors evaluated methodological quality. Two authors independently checked the data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials (12,276 women). Women who had midwife-led models of care were less likely to experience antenatal hospitalisation, risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.99), the use of regional analgesia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91), episiotomy (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.88), and instrumental delivery (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96) and were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.29), spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06), to feel in control during labour and childbirth (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.30), attendance at birth by a known midwife (RR 7.84, 95% CI 4.15 to 14.81) and initiate breastfeeding (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.76). In addition, women who were randomised to receive midwife-led care were less likely to experience fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97), and their babies were more likely to have a shorter length of hospital stay (mean difference -2.00, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.85). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for overall fetal loss/neonatal death (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), or fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All women should be offered midwife-led models of care and women should be encouraged to ask for this option.

Changing attitudes and perceptions to hyperemesis gravidarum.

A small, but significant proportion of pregnant women (1% to 2% of all pregnancies), suffer from a severe form of nausea and vomiting, which is categorised as hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). The arbitrary definition, aetiology and management of HG, which leads to conflicting attitudes and beliefs among healthcare professionals, inevitably impacts on the woman's overall experience of the condition. It causes great distress and if medical and ward staff misunderstand the condition, it can increase rather than reduce the suffering of women. A structured review was designed, both to determine the attitude and beliefs held by healthcare professionals and to advance understanding of women's experiences in relation to HG. A comprehensive search of literature was carried out. Due to the nature of the study, all the relevant identified and included articles were qualitative, therefore narrative synthesis of the tabulated results was carried out. The findings are discussed under the following themes: the experiences of the women, the various attitudes of health professionals. How the relationship between patients and health professionals is in regard to the mother's satisfaction with care and treatment. In the absence of evidence for an effective treatment, it is crucial to try and understand this complex condition, and to expand the circle of support from family to healthcare professionals involved in looking after sufferers.