ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2005
UK childbirth delivery options in 2001-2002: alternatives to consultant unit booking and delivery.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGovernment policy advocates maternal choice in pregnancy care. Two key issues are place of birth and type of lead professional. Anecdotal evidence suggests there is variation in both these issues across the UK, but there has been no recent national assessment of whether maternal options are in line with government policy.
aimTo establish the range of women's childbirth delivery options, degree of midwife autonomy, and supporting training and governance mechanisms.
designTwo postal questionnaires.
settingUK maternity units.
methodQuestionnaires were sent to maternity services managers.
main outcome measuresnumber and type of units and births, transfers and care types; midwifery procedures; clinical governance and training activities.
resultsCompleted questionnaires were received from 301 out of 308 (97.7%) units in 2002 and from 258 out of 309 (83.5%) units in 2001. Midwife-led care is available in 186 English (76.9%), 15 Welsh (78.9%), 18 Scottish (48.6%) and three Northern Ireland (30.0%) units. There are 73 (24.3%) stand-alone, 22 (7.3%) alongside, 127 (42.2%) integrated and 79 (26.2%) consultant units (for definitions of unit types, see main text), with a median 2215 hospital, 25 home and 210 midwife-led births. The median antenatal and labour transfers from midwife-led units are 25.5% (interquartile range [IQR] = 18.5-36.5%) and 18.0% (IQR = 13.4-24.8%) respectively; transfers are independent of distance to nearest consultant unit, country and unit type.
conclusionsDespite government policy promoting greater parental choice, this is not in evidence in many parts of the UK. The wide variations in home birth, midwife-led care and maternity-unit types merit further exploration. If more midwife-led units are to be established as a way of promoting parental choice and dealing with junior doctor rota problems, then such units must have adequate governance and training activities in place.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15826437PMC1463132What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.