RESUMEN
According to the World Health Organization, midwife-led care is the most appropriate and cost-effective type of perinatal care. As the Covid-19 pandemic with its drastic changes and challenges for the health systems and the medical staff made large adjustments to the healthcare delivery system, midwife-led care became an even more important supportive tool in maintaining unnecessary interventions. This retrospective cohort study aims to compare the outcomes of midwife-led care and team-led care in low-risk births between the Covid-19 pandemic and non-Covid-19 pandemic period. The total studied population was 1,185 singleton births and consisted of 727 births during the non-Covid-19 period and 458 births from the Covid-19 period. The study revealed the safety of low-risk birth care during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic in both groups. The maternal and perinatal outcomes remained stable without an increased rate of unsuccessful vaginal births and newborn asphyxia; moreover, birth care of low-risk women provided by midwives preserved autonomy, integrity, and resistance to responding to a disaster. The aforementioned results exhibit that high-quality, safe supervision by midwives in low-risk births can be provided even in high-stress circumstances.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Experts in many countries are recommending a scaling up midwifery-led care as a model to improve maternal and newborn outcomes, reduce rates of unnecessary interventions, realise cost savings, and facilitate normal spontaneous vaginal birth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare midwifery-led and obstetrician-gynaecologist-led care-related vaginal birth outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women in Kaunas city maternity care facilities. METHODS: A propensity score-matched case-control study of midwifery-led versus physician-led low-risk birth outcomes. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between the groups. Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation and analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical and binary variables are presented as frequency (percentage), and differences were analysed using the chi-square test. Analyses were conducted separately for the unmatched (before propensity score matched [PSM]) and matched (after PSM) groups. RESULTS: After adjusting groups for propensity score, postpartum haemorrhage differences between physician-led and midwifery-led labours were significantly different (169.5 and 152.6 mL; p = 0.026), same for hospital stay duration (3.3 and 3.1 days, p = 0.042). Also, in matched population, significant differences were seen for episiotomy rates (chi2 = 4.8; p = 0.029), newborn Apgar 5 min score (9.58 and 9.76; p = 0.002), and pain relief (chi2 = 14.9; p = 0.002). Significant differences were seen in unmatched but not confirmed in matched population for obstetrical procedures used during labour, breastfeeding, birth induction, newborn Apgar 1 min scores, and successful vaginal birth as an overall spontaneous vaginal birth success measure. CONCLUSION: The midwifery-led care model showed significant differences from the physician-led care model in episiotomy rates, hospital stay duration and postpartum haemorrhage, and newborn Apgar 5 min scores. Midwifery-led care is as safe as physician-led care and does not influence the rate of successful spontaneous vaginal births.