Why are women deciding against birth in alongside midwifery units? A prospective single-center study from Germany.

OBJECTIVES: For healthy women entering labor after an uneventful pregnancy, advantages of birth in midwife-led models of care have been demonstrated. We aimed to study the level of awareness regarding care in alongside midwifery units (AMU), factors involved in the decision for birth in obstetrician-led units (OLU), and wishes for care and concerns about birth in women registering for birth in OLU who would have been eligible for care in AMU. METHODS: Healthy women with a term singleton cephalic fetus after an uneventful pregnancy course booking for birth in OLU were prospectively recruited. Data were collected by questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 324 questionnaires were analyzed. One quarter (23.1%) of participants never had heard of care in AMU. Two thirds (64.2%) of women had made their choice regarding model of care before entering late pregnancy; only 16.4% indicated that health professionals had the biggest impact on their decision. One-to-one care and the availability of a pediatrician were most commonly quoted wishes (30.8 and 34.0%, respectively), and the occurrence of an adverse maternal or perinatal event the greatest concern (69.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of respondents had some knowledge about care in AMU, expressed wishes for birth matching core features of AMU and concerns matching those of OLU, a decision for birth in OLU was taken. This finding may be a result of lack of knowledge about details of care in AMU; additionally, wishes and concerns may be put aside in favor of other criteria.

Model of care and chance of spontaneous vaginal birth: a prospective, multicenter matched-pair analysis from North Rhine-Westphalia.

BACKGROUND: Advantages of midwife-led models of care have been reported; these include a higher vaginal birth rate and less interventions. In Germany, 98.4% of women are giving birth in obstetrician-led units. We compared the outcome of birth planned in alongside midwifery units (AMU) with a matched group of low-risk women who gave birth in obstetrician-led units. METHODS: A prospective, controlled, multicenter study was conducted. Six of seven AMUs in North Rhine-Westphalia participated. Healthy women with a singleton term cephalic pregnancy booking for birth in AMU were eligible. For each woman in the study group a control was chosen who would have been eligible for birth in AMU but was booking for obstetrician-led care; matching for parity was performed. Mode of birth was chosen as primary outcome parameter. Secondary endpoints included a composite outcome of adverse outcome in the third stage and / or postpartum hemorrhage; higher-order obstetric lacerations; and for the neonate, a composite outcome (5-min Apgar < 7 and / or umbilical cord arterial pH < 7.10 and / or transfer to specialist neonatal care). Statistical analysis was by intention to treat. A non-inferiority analysis was performed. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-nine case-control pairs were recruited, final analysis was performed with 391 case-control pairs. Nulliparous women constituted 56.0% of cases. For the primary endpoint vaginal birth superiority was established for the study group (5.66%, 95%-CI 0.42% - 10.88%). For the composite newborn outcome (1.28%, 95%-CI -1.86% - -4.47%) and for higher-order obstetric lacerations (2.33%, 95%-CI -0.45% - 5.37%) non-inferiority was established. Non-inferiority was not present for the composite maternal outcome (-1.56%, 95%-CI -6.69% - 3.57%). The epidural anesthesia rate was lower (22.9% vs. 41.1%), and the length of hospital stay was shorter in the study group (p < 0.001 for both). Transfer to obstetrician-led care occurred in 51.2% of cases, with a strong association to parity (p < 0.001). Request for regional anesthesia was the most common cause for transfer (47.1%). CONCLUSION: Our comparison between care in AMU and obstetrician-led care with respect to mode of birth and other outcomes confirmed the superiority of this model of care for low-risk women. This pertains to AMU where admission and transfer criteria are in place and adhered to.

Maternal and neonatal outcome of births planned in alongside midwifery units: a cohort study from a tertiary center in Germany.

BACKGROUND: For healthy women entering birth after uneventful pregnancy, midwife-led models of care have the potential to reduce interventions and increase the vaginal birth rate. In Germany, 98.4% of women are giving birth in consultant-led obstetric units. Alongside midwifery units (AMU) have been established in 2003. We compared the outcome of women registered for planned birth in the AMU at our hospital with a matched group of low-risk women who gave birth in standard obstetric care during the same period of time. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort study design. The study group consisted of all women admitted to labor ward who had registered for birth in AMU from 2010 to 2017. For the control group, low-risk women were selected; additionally, matching was performed for parity. Mode of birth was chosen as primary outcome parameter for the mother. For the neonate, a composite primary outcome (5-min Apgar < 7 or umbilical cord arterial pH < 7.10 or transfer to specialist neonatal care) was defined. Secondary outcomes included epidural anesthesia, duration of the second stage of labor, episiotomy, obstetric injury, and postpartum hemorrhage. Non-inferiority was assessed, and multiple logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Six hundred twelve women were admitted for labor in AMU, the control group consisted of 612 women giving birth in standard obstetric care. Women in the study group were on average older and had a higher body mass index (BMI); birthweight was on average 95 g higher. Non-inferiority could be established for the primary outcome parameters. Epidural anesthesia and episiotomy rates were lower, and the mean duration of the second stage of labor was shorter in the study group; second-degree perineal tears were less common, higher-order obstetric lacerations occurred more frequently. Overall, 50.3% of women were transferred to standard obstetric care. Regression analysis revealed effects of parity, age and birthweight on the chance of transfer. CONCLUSION: Compared to births in our consultant-led obstetric unit, the outcome of births planned in the AMU was not inferior, and intervention rates were lower. Our results support the integration of AMU as a complementary model of care for low-risk women.

Survey of alongside midwifery-led care in North Rhine-Westfalia, Germany.

Background Alongside midwifery-led care (AMC) was introduced in Germany in 2003. The aim of our study was to collect data about the utilization of AMC within North Rhine-Westfalia (NRW), Germany's most populous state, and to collect information regarding the approach used for implementation of AMC and providers' experiences in day-to-day work. Methods Quantitative data were collected by questionnaire, telephone interview and comparative analysis of documents created for use in AMC. Qualitative data were compiled by questionnaire and workshop. Results Seven obstetric departments offer AMC in NRW. On average, 3.4% of women gave birth in these AMC units, corresponding to 0.3% of all births in NRW. For the establishment of AMC, institutional, organizational, professional and formal arrangements were undertaken. An eligibility and transfer checklist was agreed upon between midwives and obstetricians. Both professions were faced with skepticism. Daily work in AMC resulted in improved teamwork between the two professions and increased job satisfaction for midwives. Acquisition of manual skills and time constraints were the major challenges. Conclusion The low utilization of AMC is not due to the concept of care itself or difficulties with its implementation, nor to a lack of eligible women. Reasons may be insufficient awareness about AMC or a lack of interest in this type of care.