Evaluation of a pilot healthy eating intervention in restaurants and food stores of a rural community: a randomized community trial.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that the food environment influences individual eating practices. To date, little is known about effective interventions to improve the food environment of restaurants and food stores and promote healthy eating in rural communities. We tested "Waupaca Eating Smart " (WES), a pilot intervention to improve the food environment and promote healthy eating in restaurants and supermarkets of a rural community. WES focused on labeling, promoting, and increasing the availability of healthy foods. METHODS: We conducted a randomized community trial, with two Midwestern U.S. communities randomly assigned to serve as intervention or control site. We collected process and outcome data using baseline and posttest owner and customer surveys and direct observation methods. The RE-AIM framework was used to guide the evaluation and organize the results. RESULTS: Seven of nine restaurants and two of three food stores invited to participate in WES adopted the intervention. On a 0-4 scale, the average level of satisfaction with WES was 3.14 (SD=0.69) for restaurant managers and 3 (SD=0.0) for store managers. On average, 6.3 (SD=1.1) out of 10 possible intervention activities were implemented in restaurants and 9.0 (SD=0.0) out of 12 possible activities were implemented in food stores. One month after the end of the pilot implementation period, 5.4 (SD=1.6) and 7.5 (SD=0.7) activities were still in place at restaurants and food stores, respectively. The intervention reached 60% of customers in participating food outlets. Restaurant food environment scores improved from 13.4 to 24.1 (p < 0.01) in the intervention community and did not change significantly in the control community. Food environment scores decreased slightly in both communities. No or minimal changes in customer behaviors were observed after a 10-month implementation period. CONCLUSION: The intervention achieved high levels of reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance, suggesting the feasibility and acceptability of restaurant-and food store-based interventions in rural communities. Pilot outcome data indicated very modest levels of effectiveness, but additional research adequately powered to test the impact of this intervention on food environment scores and customer behaviors needs to be conducted in order to identify its potential to promote healthy eating in rural community settings.

Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women at low risk of pregnancy complications benefit from continuity of midwifery care, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost outcomes of caseload midwifery care for women irrespective of risk factors. METHODS: In this unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial, pregnant women at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia were randomly assigned to either caseload midwifery care or standard maternity care by a telephone-based computer randomisation service. Women aged 18 years and older were eligible if they were less than 24 weeks pregnant at the first booking visit. Those who booked with another care provider, had a multiple pregnancy, or planned to have an elective caesarean section were excluded. Women allocated to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care from a named caseload midwife (or back-up caseload midwife). Controls received standard care with rostered midwives in discrete wards or clinics. The participant and the clinician were not masked to assignment. The main primary outcome was the proportion of women who had a caesarean section. The other primary maternal outcomes were the proportions who had an instrumental or unassisted vaginal birth, and the proportion who had epidural analgesia during labour. Primary neonatal outcomes were Apgar scores, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal intensive care. We analysed all outcomes by intention to treat. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246. FINDINGS: Publicly insured women were screened at the participating hospitals between Dec 8, 2008, and May 31, 2011. 1748 pregnant women were randomly assigned, 871 to caseload and 877 to standard care. The proportion of caesarean sections did not differ between the groups (183 [21%] in the caseload group vs 204 [23%] in the standard care group; odds ratio [OR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·70-1·10; p=0·26). The proportion of women who had elective caesarean sections (before onset of labour) differed significantly between caseload and standard care (69 [8%] vs 94 [11%]; OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·52-0·99; p=0·05). Proportions of instrumental birth were similar (172 [20%] vs 171 [19%]; p=0·90), as were the proportions of unassisted vaginal births (487 [56%] vs 454 [52%]; p=0·08) and epidural use (314 [36%] vs 304 [35%]; p=0·54). Neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Total cost of care per woman was AUS$566·74 (95% 106·17-1027·30; p=0·02) less for caseload midwifery than for standard maternity care. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that for women of any risk, caseload midwifery is safe and cost effective. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In many countries midwives act as the main providers of care for women throughout pregnancy, labour and birth. In our large public teaching hospital in Australia we restructured the way midwifery care is offered and introduced caseload midwifery for one third of women booked at the hospital. We then compared the costs and birth outcomes associated with caseload midwifery compared to the two existing models of care, standard hospital care and private obstetric care. METHODS: We undertook a cross sectional study examining the risk profile, birth outcomes and cost of care for women booked into one of the three available models of care in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia between July 1st 2009 December 31st 2010. To control for differences in population or case mix we described the outcomes for a cohort of low risk first time mothers known as the 'standard primipara'. RESULTS: Amongst the 1,379 women defined as 'standard primipara' there were significant differences in birth outcome. These first time 'low risk' mothers who received caseload care were more likely to have a spontaneous onset of labour and an unassisted vaginal birth 58.5% in MGP compared to 48.2% for Standard hospital care and 30.8% with Private obstetric care (p < 0.001). They were also significantly less likely to have an elective caesarean section 1.6% with MGP versus 5.3% with Standard care and 17.2% with private obstetric care (p < 0.001). From the public hospital perspective, over one financial year the average cost of care for the standard primipara in MGP was $3903.78 per woman. This was $1375.45 less per woman than those receiving Private obstetric care and $1590.91 less than Standard hospital care per woman (p < 0.001). Similar differences in cost were found in favour of MGP for all women in the study who received caseload care. CONCLUSIONS: Cost reduction appears to be achieved through reorganising the way care is delivered in the public hospital system with the introduction of Midwifery Group Practice or caseload care. The study also highlights the unexplained clinical variation that exists between the three models of care in Australia.

A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options).

BACKGROUND: Australia has an enviable record of safety for women in childbirth. There is nevertheless growing concern at the increasing level of intervention and consequent morbidity amongst childbearing women. Not only do interventions impact on the cost of services, they carry with them the potential for serious morbidities for mother and infant.Models of midwifery have proliferated in an attempt to offer women less fragmented hospital care. One of these models that is gaining widespread consumer, disciplinary and political support is caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwives manage the care of approximately 35-40 a year within a small Midwifery Group Practice (usually 4-6 midwives who plan their on call and leave within the Group Practice.) We propose to compare the outcomes and costs of caseload midwifery care compared to standard or routine hospital care through a randomised controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-arm RCT design will be used. Women will be recruited from tertiary women's hospitals in Sydney and Brisbane, Australia. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive care from a named caseload midwife within a Midwifery Group Practice. Control women will be allocated to standard or routine hospital care. Women allocated to standard care will receive their care from hospital rostered midwives, public hospital obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. All midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary according to the woman's needs. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected at recruitment, 36 weeks antenatally, six weeks and six months postpartum by web based or postal survey. With 750 women or more in each of the intervention and control arms the study is powered (based on 80% power; alpha 0.05) to detect a difference in caesarean section rates of 29.4 to 22.9%; instrumental birth rates from 11.0% to 6.8%; and rates of admission to neonatal intensive care of all neonates from 9.9% to 5.8% (requires 721 in each arm). The study is not powered to detect infant or maternal mortality, however all deaths will be reported. Other significant findings will be reported, including a comprehensive process and economic evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000349246.