Birth outcomes for women planning Vaginal Birth after Caesarean (VBAC) in midwifery led settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PROBLEM: There is a limited knowledge base available to midwives, obstetricians and women planning vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), impeding their ability to make informed choices regarding planned place of birth. BACKGROUND: A VBAC is associated with fewer complications for both mother and baby, but little is known on the safety and success of planning a VBAC in midwifery led settings such as birth centres and home birth, compared to obstetric led settings. AIM: To synthesise the findings of published studies regarding maternal and neonatal outcomes with planned VBAC in midwifery setting compared to obstetric units. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL complete, Maternity and Infant Care, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index databases were systematically searched on 16/08/2022 for all quantitative research on the outcomes for women planning VBAC in midwifery led settings compared to obstetric led settings in high income countries. Included studies were quality assessed using the CASP Checklist. Binary outcomes are incorporated into pairwise meta-analyses, effect sizes reported as risk ratios with 95 % confidence intervals. A τ² estimate of between-study variance was performed for each binary outcome analysis. Other, more heterogeneous outcomes are narratively reported. FINDINGS: Two high-quality studies, out of 420 articles, were included. VBAC planned in a midwifery-led setting was associated with a statistically significant increase in unassisted vaginal birth (RR=1.42 95 % CI 1.37 to 1.48) and decrease in emergency caesarean section (RR= 0.46 95 % CI 0.39 to 0.56) and instrumental birth (RR= 0.33 95 % CI 0.23 to 0.47) compared with planned VBAC in an obstetric setting. There were no significant differences in uterine rupture (RR= 1.03 95 % CI 0.52 to 2.07), admission to special care nursery (RR= 0.71 95 % CI 0.47 to 1.23) or Apgar score of 7 or less at 5 min (RR= 1.16 95 % CI 0.66 to 2.03). CONCLUSION: Planning VBAC in midwifery led settings is associated with increased vaginal birth and a reduction in interventions such as instrumental birth and caesarean section. Adverse perinatal outcomes are rare, and further research is required to draw conclusions on these risks.

Project20: maternity care mechanisms that improve access and engagement for women with social risk factors in the UK - a mixed-methods, realist evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how women access and engage with different models of maternity care, whether specialist models improve access and engagement for women with social risk factors, and if so, how? DESIGN: Realist evaluation. SETTING: Two UK maternity service providers. PARTICIPANTS: Women accessing maternity services in 2019 (n=1020). METHODS: Prospective observational cohort with multinomial regression analysis to compare measures of access and engagement between models and place of antenatal care. Realist informed, longitudinal interviews with women accessing specialist models of care were analysed to identify mechanisms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of access and engagement, healthcare-seeking experiences. RESULTS: The number of social risk factors women were experiencing increased with deprivation score, with the most deprived more likely to receive a specialist model that provided continuity of care. Women attending hospital-based antenatal care were more likely to access maternity care late (risk ratio (RR) 2.51, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.70), less likely to have the recommended number of antenatal appointments (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.99) and more likely to have over 15 appointments (RR 4.90, 95% CI 2.50 to 9.61) compared with community-based care. Women accessing standard care (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.11) and black women (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.11) were less likely to have appointments with a known healthcare professional compared with the specialist model. Qualitative data revealed mechanisms for improved access and engagement including self-referral, relational continuity with a small team of midwives, flexibility and situating services within deprived community settings. CONCLUSION: Inequalities in access and engagement with maternity care appears to have been mitigated by the community-based specialist model that provided continuity of care. The findings enabled the refinement of a realist programme theory to inform those developing maternity services in line with current policy.

Project20: Does continuity of care and community-based antenatal care improve maternal and neonatal birth outcomes for women with social risk factors? A prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Social factors associated with poor childbirth outcomes and experiences of maternity care include minority ethnicity, poverty, young motherhood, homelessness, difficulty speaking or understanding English, migrant or refugee status, domestic violence, mental illness and substance abuse. It is not known what specific aspects of maternity care work to improve the maternal and neonatal outcomes for these under-served, complex populations. METHODS: This study aimed to compare maternal and neonatal clinical birth outcomes for women with social risk factors accessing different models of maternity care. Quantitative data on pregnancy and birth outcome measures for 1000 women accessing standard care, group practice and specialist models of care at two large, inner-city maternity services were prospectively collected and analysed using multinominal regression. The level of continuity of care and place of antenatal care were used as independent variables to explore these potentially influential aspects of care. Outcomes adjusted for women's social and medical risk factors and the service attended. RESULTS: Women who received standard maternity care were significantly less likely to use water for pain relief in labour (RR 0.11, CI 0.02-0.62) and have skin to skin contact with their baby shortly after birth (RR 0.34, CI 0.14-0.80) compared to the specialist model of care. Antenatal care based in the hospital setting was associated with a significant increase in preterm birth (RR 2.38, CI 1.32-4.27) and low birth weight (RR 2.31, CI 1.24-4.32), and a decrease in induction of labour (RR 0.65, CI 0.45-0.95) compared to community-based antenatal care, this was despite women's medical risk factors. A subgroup analysis found that preterm birth was increased further for women with the highest level of social risk accessing hospital-based antenatal care (RR 3.11, CI1.49-6.50), demonstrating the protective nature of community-based antenatal care. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights how community-based antenatal care, with a focus on continuity of carer reduced health inequalities and improved maternal and neonatal clinical outcomes for women with social risk factors. The findings support the current policy drive to increase continuity of midwife-led care, whilst adding that community-based care may further improve outcomes for women at increased risk of health inequalities. The relationship between community-based models of care and neonatal outcomes require further testing in future research. The identification of specific mechanisms such as help-seeking and reduced anxiety, to explain these findings are explored in a wider evaluation.