An alternative model of maternity care for low-risk birth: Maternal and neonatal outcomes utilizing the midwifery-based birth center model.

OBJECTIVE: To assess key birth outcomes in an alternative maternity care model, midwifery-based birth center care. DATA SOURCES: The American Association of Birth Centers Perinatal Data Registry and birth certificate files, using national data collected from 2009 to 2019. STUDY DESIGN: This observational cohort study compared key clinical birth outcomes of women at low risk for perinatal complications, comparing those who received care in the midwifery-based birth center model versus hospital-based usual care. Linear regression analysis was used to assess key clinical outcomes in the midwifery-based group as compared with hospital-based usual care. The hospital-based group was selected using nearest neighbor matching, and the primary linear regressions were weighted using propensity score weights (PSWs). The key clinical outcomes considered were cesarean delivery, low birth weight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding, and neonatal death. We performed sensitivity analyses using inverse probability weights and entropy balancing weights. We also assessed the remaining role of omitted variable bias using a bounding methodology. DATA COLLECTION: Women aged 16-45 with low-risk pregnancies, defined as a singleton fetus and no record of hypertension or cesarean section, were included. The sample was selected for records that overlapped in each year and state. Counties were included if there were at least 50 midwifery-based birth center births and 300 total births. After matching, the sample size of the birth center cohort was 85,842 and the hospital-based cohort was 261,439. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Women receiving midwifery-based birth center care experienced lower rates of cesarean section (-12.2 percentage points, p < 0.001), low birth weight (-3.2 percentage points, p < 0.001), NICU admission (-5.5 percentage points, p < 0.001), neonatal death (-0.1 percentage points, p < 0.001), and higher rates of breastfeeding (9.3 percentage points, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis supports midwifery-based birth center care as a high-quality model that delivers optimal outcomes for low-risk maternal/newborn dyads.

Adapting Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Perinatal Depression to Improve Access and Appeal of Preventive Care.

Existing and emerging evidence indicates that perinatal depression is a key contributor to preventable morbidity and mortality during and after childbearing. Despite this, there are few effective options for prevention and treatment that are readily accessible for and appealing to pregnant people. Aspects of routine health care systems contribute to this situation. Furthermore, societal and health care systems factors create additional barriers for people of color, people living in rural regions, and people living in poverty. Our interprofessional team of perinatal care providers, mental health providers, community partners, health services scientists, health equity scientists, and business leaders developed and are piloting a perinatal mental health preventive intervention designed to increase access and appeal of a program incorporating mindfulness cognitive behavioral therapy with proven efficacy in preventing perinatal depression. In this article, we briefly summarize key systems barriers to delivering preventive care for perinatal depression in standard prenatal care clinics. We then describe Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Perinatal Depression and outline our adaptation of this intervention, Center M. Finally, we identify next steps, challenges, and opportunities for this recent innovation.

Induction of labor or expectant management? Birth outcomes for nulliparous individuals choosing midwifery care.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor (IOL) has been studied as a strategy to reduce rates of cesarean birth (CB). Midwifery care models are also associated with lower CB rates, even considering that midwives perform fewer IOLs. In this study, we examined childbirth outcomes among individuals undergoing IOL in certified nurse-midwifery (CNM) care as compared to two categories of expectant management (EM). METHODS: Data were from two CNM practices in the United States (2007-2018). The sample was limited to term nulliparous, nondiabetic, singleton, vertex pregnancies. Individuals having an IOL in each week of gestation (37th, 38th, etc) were compared with those having EM. Two methods for defining EM were considered as each method when used alone limits interpretation. Inclusive EM included all births starting in the same week as IOL. The exclusive EM group was comprised of all births occurring in the next gestational age week relative to the IOL cases (ie, 39th week IOL versus all births occurring at 40 weeks or later). Adjusted regression models were used to examine differences in CB by IOL versus EM (inclusive or exclusive) at each week of gestation. RESULTS: Among 4057 CNM-attended pregnancies, the overall rate of IOL was 28.9% (95% CI 27.5%-30.3%) and CB was 19.4% (95% CI 18.1%-20.6%). Most IOLs involved obstetric indications. CB rates did not differ by IOL versus inclusive EM when performed between 37 and 40 weeks, though post hoc power calculations indicate these comparisons were low-powered. In multivarable models, IOL in the 40th week was associated with lower odds for CB versus exclusive EM definition (ie, births occurring at 41 0/7 weeks or later, OR (95% CI) = 0.57 (0.36-0.90)). This finding is explained by the large increase in CB rates after IOL during the 41st week (34.3%, up from 21.9% in the 40th week). Furthermore, the adjusted odds for CB in the 41st week were 55% higher relative to inclusive EM (all labors 41st week and later), OR (95% CI) = 1.55(1.11-2.15). Neonatal outcomes (aside from macrosomia) did not differ by IOL/EM at any gestational age. DISCUSSION: Outcomes for nulliparous individuals having IOL or EM in the context of a midwifery model of care include low overall use of CB and low frequency of IOL before 41 weeks. In this model, IOL in the 40th week may lower CB odds, especially in comparison to those who do not have spontaneous labor and later undergo an IOL in the 41st week.

Challenges in the Triage Care of Low-Risk Laboring Patients: A Comparison of 2 Models of Practice.

Triage and the timing of admission of low-risk pregnant women can affect the use of augmentation, epidural, and cesarean. The purpose of this analysis was to explore these outcomes in a community hospital by the type of provider staffing triage. This was a retrospective cohort study of low-risk nulliparous women with a term, vertex fetus laboring in a community hospital. Bivariate and multivariable statistics evaluated associations between triage provider type and labor and birth outcomes. Patients in this sample (N = 335) were predominantly White (89.5%), with private insurance (77.0%), and married (71.0%) with no significant differences in these characteristics by triage provider type. Patients admitted by midwives had lower odds of oxytocin augmentation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.29-0.87), epidural (aOR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.12-0.69), and cesarean birth (aOR = 0.308, 95% CI = 0.14-0.67), compared with those triaged by physicians after controlling for patient characteristics and triage timing. This study provides additional context to midwives as labor triage providers for healthy, low-risk pregnant individuals; however, challenges persisted with measurement. More research is needed on the specific components of care during labor that support low-risk patients to avoid medical interventions and poor outcomes.

The association between longer durations of the latent phase of labor and subsequent perinatal processes and outcomes among midwifery patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the duration of the latent phase of labor and subsequent processes and outcomes. METHODS: Secondary analysis of prospectively collected data among 1,189 women with low-risk pregnancies and spontaneous labor. RESULTS: Longer latent phase duration was associated with labor dystocia (eg, nulliparous ≥ mean [compared with < mean] aOR 3.95 [2.70-5.79]; multiparous ≥ mean [compared with < mean] aOR 5.45 [3.43-8.65]), interventions to ameliorate dystocia, and epidurals to cope or rest (eg, oxytocin augmentation: nulliparous > 80th% [compared with < 80th%] aOR 6.39 [4.04-10.12]; multiparous ≥ 80th% [compared with < 80th%] aOR 6.35 [3.79-10.64]). Longer latent phase duration was also associated with longer active phase and second stage. There were no associations between latent phase duration and risk for cesarean delivery or postpartum hemorrhage in a practice setting with relatively low rates of primary cesarean. Newborns born to multiparous women with latent phase of labor durations at and beyond the 80th% were more frequently admitted to the NICU (≥80th% [compared with < 80th%] aOR 2.7 [1.22-5.84]); however, two-thirds of these NICU admissions were likely for observation only. CONCLUSIONS: Longer duration of the spontaneous latent phase of labor among women with low-risk pregnancies may signal longer total labor processes, leading to an increase in diagnosis of dystocia, interventions to manage dystocia, and epidural use. Apart from multiparous neonatal NICU admission, no other maternal or child morbidity outcomes were elevated with longer duration of the latent phase of labor.

Using the Robson 10-Group Classification System to Compare Cesarean Birth Utilization Between US Centers With and Without Midwives.

INTRODUCTION: The Robson 10-group classification system stratifies cesarean birth rates using maternal characteristics. Our aim was to compare cesarean birth utilization in US centers with and without midwifery care using the Robson classification. METHODS: We used National Institute of Child and Human Development Consortium on Safe Labor data from 2002 to 2008. Births to women in centers with interprofessional care that included midwives (n = 48,857) were compared with births in non-interprofessional centers (n = 47,935). To compare cesarean utilization, births were classified into the Robson categories. Cesarean birth rates within each category and the contribution to the overall rate were calculated. Maternal demographics, labor and birth outcomes, and neonatal outcomes were described. Logistic regression was used to adjust for maternal comorbidities. RESULTS: Women were less likely to have a cesarean birth (26.1% vs 33.5%, P < .001) in centers with interprofessional care. Nulliparous women with singleton, cephalic, term fetuses (category 2) were less likely to have labor induced (11.1% vs 23.4%, P < .001), and women with a prior uterine scar (category 5) had lower cesarean birth rates (73.8% vs 85.1%, P < .001) in centers with midwives. In centers without midwives, nulliparous women with singleton, cephalic, term fetuses with induction of labor (category 2a) were less likely to have a cesarean birth compared with those in interprofessional care centers in unadjusted comparison (30.3% vs 35.8%, P < .001), but this was reversed after adjustment for maternal comorbidities (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.32; P < .001). Cesarean birth rates among women at risk for complications (eg, breech) were similar between groups. DISCUSSION: Interprofessional care teams were associated with lower rates of labor induction and overall cesarean utilization as well as higher rates of vaginal birth after cesarean. There was consistency in cesarean rates among women with higher risk for complications.

Midwifery presence in United States medical centers and labor care and birth outcomes among low-risk nulliparous women: A Consortium on Safe Labor study.

BACKGROUND: The presence of midwives in a health system may affect perinatal outcomes but has been inadequately described in United States settings. Our objective was to compare labor processes and outcomes for low-risk nulliparous women birthing in United States medical centers with interprofessional care (midwives and physicians) versus noninterprofessional care (physicians only). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk nulliparous women who birthed in interprofessional (n = 7393) or noninterprofessional centers (n = 6982). Unadjusted, adjusted (age, race, health insurance type), propensity-adjusted, and propensity-matched logistic regression models were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: There was concordance across logistic regression models, the most restrictive and conservative of which were propensity-matched models. With this approach, women at interprofessional medical centers, compared with women at noninterprofessional centers, were 74% less likely to undergo labor induction (risk ratio [RR] 0.26; 95% CI 0.24-0.29) and 75% less likely to have oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.22-0.29). The cesarean birth rate was 12% lower at interprofessional centers (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.98). Adverse neonatal outcomes occurred in only 0.3% of births and were thus too rare to be modeled. CONCLUSIONS: The care processes and birth outcomes at interprofessional and noninterprofessional medical centers differed significantly. Nulliparous women receiving care at interprofessional centers were less likely to experience induction, oxytocin augmentation, and cesarean than women at noninterprofessional centers. Labor care and birth outcome differences between interprofessional and noninterprofessional centers may be the result of the presence of midwives and interprofessional collaboration, organizational culture, or both.

Influence of midwifery presence in United States centers on labor care and outcomes of low-risk parous women: A Consortium on Safe Labor study.

BACKGROUND: Sixty percent of United States births are to multiparous women. Hospital-level policies and culture may influence intrapartum care and birth outcomes for this large population, yet have been poorly explored using a large, diverse sample. We sought to use national United States data to analyze the association between midwifery presence in maternity care teams and the birth processes and outcomes of low-risk parous women. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Consortium on Safe Labor data from low-risk parous women in either interprofessional care (n = 12 125) or noninterprofessional care centers (n = 8996). Unadjusted, adjusted (age, race, health insurance type), propensity-adjusted, and propensity-matched logistic regression models were used to assess processes and outcomes. RESULTS: There was concordance in outcome differences across regression models. With propensity score matching, women at interprofessional centers, compared with women at noninterprofessional centers, were 85% less likely to have labor induced (risk ratio [RR] 0.15; 95% CI 0.14-0.17). The risk for primary cesarean birth among low-risk parous women was 36% lower at interprofessional centers (RR 0.64; 95% CI 00.52-0.79), whereas the likelihood of vaginal birth after cesarean for this population was 31% higher (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.10-1.56). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Parous women have significantly higher rates of vaginal birth, including vaginal birth after cesarean, and lower likelihood of labor induction when cared for in centers with midwives. Our findings are consistent with smaller analyses of midwifery practice and support integrated, team-based models of perinatal care to improve maternal outcomes.

The Influence of Group Versus Individual Prenatal Care on Phase of Labor at Hospital Admission.

INTRODUCTION: Group prenatal care, an alternate model of prenatal care delivery, has been associated with various improved perinatal outcomes in comparison to standard, individual prenatal care. One important maternity care process measure that has not been explored among women who receive group prenatal care versus standard prenatal care is the phase of labor (latent vs active) at hospital admission. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was conducted comparing 150 women who selected group prenatal care with certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) versus 225 women who chose standard prenatal care with CNMs. Analyses performed included descriptive statistics to compare groups and multivariate regression to evaluate the contribution of key covariates potentially influencing outcomes. Propensity scores were calculated and included in regression models. RESULTS: Women within this sample who received group prenatal care were more likely to be in active labor (≥ 4 cm of cervical dilatation) at hospital admission (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.99; P = .049) and were admitted to the hospital with significantly greater cervical dilatation (mean [standard deviation, SD] 5.7 [2.5] cm vs. 5.1 [2.3] cm, P = .005) compared with women who received standard prenatal care, controlling for potential confounding variables and propensity for group versus individual care selection. DISCUSSION: Group prenatal care may be an effective and safe intervention for decreasing latent labor hospital admission among low-risk women. Neither group prenatal care nor active labor hospital admission was associated with increased morbidity.