These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A scoping review of evidence comparing models of maternity care in Australia.
    Author: Talukdar S, Dingle K, Miller YD.
    Journal: Midwifery; 2021 Aug; 99():102973. PubMed ID: 33932707.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To synthesize available evidence comparing outcomes and experiences of care received in different maternity models in Australia and identify the information gaps hindering women's decisions between alternative models. DESIGN: A literature search was conducted to identify published research over the last twenty years that directly compared clinical and/or experiential outcomes of women in different maternity models of care in Australia. Outcome measures of included articles were identified and assessed to evaluate current comparative information available to women and health professionals. The quality of included studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools for randomised controlled studies (RCTs) and cohort studies. Quantitative data were extracted and synthesised for further analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Published studies comparing at least two maternity care models providing antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care in Australia. RESULTS: Eight studies (five RCTs and three observational studies) met inclusion criteria. Seven studies compared the outcomes of public midwifery continuity care and standard public care and one compared the outcomes of public midwifery continuity care, standard care and private obstetric care. There was no evidence directly comparing all broadly categorised available models in Australia. Data for clinical outcomes were collected from hospital records and experiential data were self-reported. Seven out of eight studies used data collected from single public hospital settings and one study included data from two tertiary hospitals. Women in public midwifery continuity models were more likely to have unassisted vaginal births, continuity of care and satisfaction and lower use of interventions (i.e., episiotomy, induction of labour, use of analgesia) and neonatal admission in intensive care units (ICU), compared with those in standard public models (and private obstetric care in one study). CONCLUSION: This scoping review reveals lack of reliable direct comparison of clinical and experiential outcomes across the multiple available public and private maternity models of care in Australia. Quality alignment between women's needs and their maternity model of care can prevent under or over specialised care and avoidable health system costs. Comprehensive information comparing all available maternity care models can guide gatekeeper health professionals and women to choose the best model according to women's needs and preferences. There is a need for research providing more comprehensive and ecological comparisons between available models of maternity care to inform such decision making support. Moreover, women's experiential data across maternity model of care comparisons could be used more consistently to better represent the relative outcomes of alternative models from a consumer-centred perspective.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]