Perinatal Outcomes of Midwife-led Care, Stratified by Medical Risk: a Retrospective Cohort Study from British Columbia (2008-2018)

Overview

Journal CMAJ

Date 2023 Feb 27

PMID 36849178

Authors

Kathrin Stoll

Reena Titoria

Michelle Turner

Adrian Jones

Luba Butska

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Anecdotal evidence suggests that the profile of midwifery clients in British Columbia has changed over the past 20 years and that midwives are increasingly caring for clients with moderate to high medical risk. We sought to compare perinatal outcomes with a registered midwife as the most responsible provider (MRP) versus outcomes among clients with physicians as their MRP across medical risk strata.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study (2008-2018) used data from the BC Perinatal Data Registry. We included all births that had a family physician, obstetrician or midwife listed as the MRP ( = 425 056) and stratified the analysis by pregnancy risk status (low, moderate or high) according to an adapted perinatal risk scoring system. We estimated differences in outcomes between MRP groups by calculating adjusted absolute and relative risks.

Results: The adjusted absolute and relative risks of adverse neonatal outcomes were consistently lower among those who chose midwifery care across medical risk strata, compared with clients who had a physician as MRP. Midwifery clients experienced higher rates of spontaneous vaginal births, vaginal births after cesarean delivery and breastfeeding initiation, and lower rates of cesarean deliveries and instrumental births, with no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. We observed an increased risk of oxytocin induction among high-risk birthers with a midwife versus an obstetrician as MRP.

Interpretation: Our findings suggest that compared with other providers in BC, midwives provide safe primary care for clients with varied levels of medical risk. Future research might examine how different practice and remuneration models affect clinical outcomes, client and provider experiences, and costs to the health care system.

Citing Articles

Exploring the landscape of Canadian midwifery research: strengths, gaps and priorities - results of a scoping review.

Ruby E, Brunton G, Rack J, Al Balkhi S, Banfield L, Grenier L BMJ Open. 2024; 14(12):e087698.

PMID: 39672589 PMC: 11647286. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087698.

Midwife-Led Versus Obstetrician-Led Perinatal Care for Low-Risk Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1.4 Million Pregnancies.

Sriram S, Almutairi F, Albadrani M J Clin Med. 2024; 13(22).

PMID: 39597773 PMC: 11594941. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13226629.

Community level factors and racial inequities in delivery hospitalizations involving severe maternal morbidity in the United States, 2016-2019.

Claridy M, Hernandez-Green N, Rathbun S, Cordero J Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):19297.

PMID: 39164399 PMC: 11336213. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-70130-1.

Evaluating rural health outcomes: A methodological approach using population-level data.

Av-Gay G, Parajulee A, Stoll K, Kornelsen J Health Care Sci. 2024; 3(3):151-162.

PMID: 38947364 PMC: 11212297. DOI: 10.1002/hcs2.94.

Navigating geographical disparities: access to obstetric hospitals in maternity care deserts and across the United States.

Fontenot J, Brigance C, Lucas R, Stoneburner A BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024; 24(1):350.

PMID: 38720255 PMC: 11080172. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06535-7.

References

Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D . Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (9):CD004667. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub4. View

McRae D, Muhajarine N, Janssen P . Improving birth outcomes for women who are substance using or have mental illness: a Canadian cohort study comparing antenatal midwifery and physician models of care for women of low socioeconomic position. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019; 19(1):279. PMC: 6683351. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-019-2428-y. View

Thiessen K, Nickel N, Prior H, Morris M, Robinson K . Understanding the Allocation of Caesarean Outcome to Provider Type: A Chart Review. Healthc Policy. 2019; 14(2):22-30. PMC: 7008672. DOI: 10.12927/hcpol.2018.25689. View

Halpern S . SOGC Joint Policy Statement on Normal Childbirth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009; 31(7):602. DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34236-0. View

McRae D, Janssen P, Vedam S, Mayhew M, Mpofu D, Teucher U . Reduced prevalence of small-for-gestational-age and preterm birth for women of low socioeconomic position: a population-based cohort study comparing antenatal midwifery and physician models of care. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(10):e022220. PMC: 6169769. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022220. View

Burstyn I . Antepartum risk score predicts adverse birth outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010; 32(1):16-20. DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34398-5. View

Janssen P, Saxell L, Page L, Klein M, Liston R, Lee S . Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ. 2009; 181(6-7):377-83. PMC: 2742137. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.081869. View

. SOGC policy statement. No. 251, December 2010. Returning birth to aboriginal, rural, and remote communities. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011; 32(12):1186-8. DOI: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)34744-2. View

Renfrew M, McFadden A, Bastos M, Campbell J, Channon A, Cheung N . Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet. 2014; 384(9948):1129-45. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60789-3. View

10.

Robbins A, Chao S, Fonseca V . What's the relative risk? A method to directly estimate risk ratios in cohort studies of common outcomes. Ann Epidemiol. 2002; 12(7):452-4. DOI: 10.1016/s1047-2797(01)00278-2. View

11.

Bayrampour H, Lisonkova S, Tamana S, Wines J, Vedam S, Janssen P . Perinatal outcomes of planned home birth after cesarean and planned hospital vaginal birth after cesarean at term gestation in British Columbia, Canada: A retrospective population-based cohort study. Birth. 2021; 48(3):301-308. DOI: 10.1111/birt.12539. View

12.

Stoll K, Downe S, Edmonds J, Gross M, Malott A, McAra-Couper J . A Survey of University Students' Preferences for Midwifery Care and Community Birth Options in 8 High-Income Countries. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2020; 65(1):131-141. DOI: 10.1111/jmwh.13069. View

13.

McNutt L, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner J . Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 157(10):940-3. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg074. View

14.

Frosst G, Hutcheon J, Joseph K, Kinniburgh B, Johnson C, Lee L . Validating the British Columbia Perinatal Data Registry: a chart re-abstraction study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15:123. PMC: 4445296. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-015-0563-7. View

15.

Stoll K, Hauck Y, Downe S, Payne D, Hall W . Preference for cesarean section in young nulligravid women in eight OECD countries and implications for reproductive health education. Reprod Health. 2017; 14(1):116. PMC: 5594573. DOI: 10.1186/s12978-017-0354-x. View

16.

Stoll K, Kornelsen J . Midwifery care in rural and remote British Columbia: a retrospective cohort study of perinatal outcomes of rural parturient women with a midwife involved in their care, 2003 to 2008. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014; 59(1):60-6. DOI: 10.1111/jmwh.12137. View

17.

Stoll K, Gallagher J . A survey of burnout and intentions to leave the profession among Western Canadian midwives. Women Birth. 2018; 32(4):e441-e449. DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2018.10.002. View