Child and Maternal Benefits and Risks of Caseload Midwifery - a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2023 Sep 15

PMID 37715118

Authors

Lotta Wassen

Beata Borgstrom Bolmsjo

Sophia Frantz

Anna Hagman

Marie Lindroth

Christine Rubertsson

Annika Strandell

Therese Svanberg

Anna Wessberg

Susanna M Wallerstedt

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: It has been reported that caseload midwifery, which implies continuity of midwifery care during pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period, improves the outcomes for the mother and child. The aim of this study was to review benefits and risks of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care comparable to the Swedish setting where the same midwife usually provides antenatal care and the checkup postnatally, but does not assist during birth and the first week postpartum.

Methods: Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library were searched (Nov 4th, 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Retrieved articles were assessed and pooled risk ratios calculated when possible, using random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.

Results: In all, 7,594 patients in eight RCTs were included, whereof five RCTs without major risk of bias, including 5,583 patients, formed the basis for the conclusions. There was moderate certainty of evidence for little or no difference regarding the risk of Apgar ≤ 7 at 5 min, instrumental birth, and preterm birth. There was low certainty of evidence for little or no difference regarding the risk of perinatal mortality, neonatal intensive care, perineal tear, bleeding, and acute caesarean section. Caseload midwifery may reduce the overall risk of caesarean section. Regarding breastfeeding after hospital discharge, maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, health-related quality of life, postpartum depression, health care experience/satisfaction and confidence, available studies did not allow conclusions (very low certainty of evidence). For severe child morbidity and Apgar ≤ 4 at 5 min, there was no literature available.

Conclusions: When caseload midwifery was compared with models of care that resembles the Swedish one, little or no difference was found for several critical and important child and maternal outcomes with low-moderate certainty of evidence, but the risk of caesarean section may be reduced. For several outcomes, including critical and important ones, studies were lacking, or the certainty of evidence was very low. RCTs in relevant settings are therefore required.

Citing Articles

Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

Sandall J, Fernandez Turienzo C, Devane D, Soltani H, Gillespie P, Gates S Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024; 4:CD004667.

PMID: 38597126 PMC: 11005019. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub6.

References

Betran A, Ye J, Moller A, Souza J, Zhang J . Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021; 6(6). PMC: 8208001. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671. View

Wiegerinck M, Eskes M, van der Post J, Mol B, Ravelli A . Intrapartum and neonatal mortality in low-risk term women in midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care at the onset of labor: A national matched cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019; 99(4):546-554. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13767. View

Hildingsson I, Karlstrom A, Rubertsson C, Haines H . Women with fear of childbirth might benefit from having a known midwife during labour. Women Birth. 2018; 32(1):58-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2018.04.014. View

Perriman N, Davis D, Ferguson S . What women value in the midwifery continuity of care model: A systematic review with meta-synthesis. Midwifery. 2018; 62:220-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.04.011. View

Dawson K, McLachlan H, Newton M, Forster D . Implementing caseload midwifery: Exploring the views of maternity managers in Australia - A national cross-sectional survey. Women Birth. 2015; 29(3):214-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2015.10.010. View

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. 2016; 4:CD004667. PMC: 8663203. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5. View

Stephansson O, Petersson K, Bjork C, Conner P, Wikstrom A . The Swedish Pregnancy Register - for quality of care improvement and research. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017; 97(4):466-476. PMC: 5873375. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13266. View

Jepsen I, Juul S, Foureur M, Sorensen E, Nohr E . Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18(1):481. PMC: 6282374. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-018-2090-9. View

Marks M, Siddle K, Warwick C . Can we prevent postnatal depression? A randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of continuity of midwifery care on rates of postnatal depression in high-risk women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003; 13(2):119-27. DOI: 10.1080/jmf.13.2.119.127. View

10.

McLachlan H, Forster D, Davey M, Farrell T, Gold L, Biro M . Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2012; 119(12):1483-92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03446.x. View

11.

Tracy S, Hartz D, Tracy M, Allen J, Forti A, Hall B . Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013; 382(9906):1723-32. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61406-3. View

12.

Hanley A, Davis D, Kurz E . Job satisfaction and sustainability of midwives working in caseload models of care: An integrative literature review. Women Birth. 2021; 35(4):e397-e407. DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2021.06.003. View

13.

McLachlan H, Forster D, Davey M, Farrell T, Flood M, Shafiei T . The effect of primary midwife-led care on women's experience of childbirth: results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2015; 123(3):465-74. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13713. View

14.

Forster D, McLachlan H, Davey M, Biro M, Farrell T, Gold L . Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) increases women's satisfaction with antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care: results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16:28. PMC: 4739100. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-0798-y. View

15.

Homer C, Davis G, Cooke M, Barclay L . Women's experiences of continuity of midwifery care in a randomised controlled trial in Australia. Midwifery. 2002; 18(2):102-12. DOI: 10.1054/midw.2002.0298. View

16.

Homer C, Davis D, Mollart L, Turkmani S, Smith R, Bullard M . Midwifery continuity of care and vaginal birth after caesarean section: A randomised controlled trial. Women Birth. 2021; 35(3):e294-e301. DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2021.05.010. View

17.

Fernandez Turienzo C, Bick D, Briley A, Bollard M, Coxon K, Cross P . Midwifery continuity of care versus standard maternity care for women at increased risk of preterm birth: A hybrid implementation-effectiveness, randomised controlled pilot trial in the UK. PLoS Med. 2020; 17(10):e1003350. PMC: 7537886. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003350. View

18.

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. PMC: 8005924. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. View

19.

Fernandez Turienzo C, Silverio S, Coxon K, Brigante L, Seed P, Shennan A . Experiences of maternity care among women at increased risk of preterm birth receiving midwifery continuity of care compared to women receiving standard care: Results from the POPPIE pilot trial. PLoS One. 2021; 16(4):e0248588. PMC: 8059847. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248588. View

20.

. A randomised study of midwifery caseload care and traditional 'shared-care'. Midwifery. 2000; 16(4):295-302. DOI: 10.1054/midw.2000.0224. View