ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2014
Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.
- Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of midwifery-led care on pregnancy outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Pooled it
- The quantification of midwifery research: Limiting midwifery knowledge.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2022Pooled it
- Women's Satisfaction with Midwifery-Led Continuity of Care: Insights from Antenatal, Intrapartum, and Postnatal Experiences in the Sidama Region, Ethiopia. A Non-Randomized Control Trial.Health services insights · 2026Article
- Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes and Health System Costs in Standard Public Maternity Care Compared to Private Obstetric-Led Care: A Population-Level Matched Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Observational
- "Inspiring mothers' self-entrustment to midwives." midwives' and mothers' perceptions of effective communication in the maternity ward: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review Mapping Economic Evaluations of Midwifery Service Provision and the Midwifery Workforce.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Towards developing new private sector maternity care models in South Africa: results from a deliberative stakeholder dialogue.Globalization and health · 2025Article
- Differences in women's experiences of labour according to type of fetal monitoring: a quantitative analysis of an Australian national survey.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- The effect of midwifery-led continuum of care to improve maternal and newborn outcomes in the Sidama region, Ethiopia: A non-randomized control trial study.SAGE open medicine · 2025Article
- Midwife-Led Versus Obstetrician-Led Perinatal Care for Low-Risk Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1.4 Million Pregnancies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Effect of continuity of team midwifery care on maternal and neonatal outcomes: a quasi-experimental study in Iran.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- An integrative review of supportive relationships between child-bearing women and midwives.Nursing open · 2023Review
- Experiences of health providers regarding implementation of the physiologic birth program in Iran: A qualitative content analysis.PloS one · 2023Article
- Midwives' experiences with accompaniment service work in Norway: A qualitative study.European journal of midwifery · 2023Article
- Midwife-centred management: a qualitative study of midwifery group practice management and leadership in Australia.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- A direct comparison of patient-reported outcomes and experiences in alternative models of maternity care in Queensland, Australia.PloS one · 2022Article
- Women's perception of continuity of team midwifery care in Iran: a qualitative content analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Do you pay to go private?: a single centre comparison of induction of labour and caesarean section rates in private versus public patients.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Women's characteristics and care outcomes of caseload midwifery care in the Netherlands: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn many countries midwives act as the main providers of care for women throughout pregnancy, labour and birth. In our large public teaching hospital in Australia we restructured the way midwifery care is offered and introduced caseload midwifery for one third of women booked at the hospital. We then compared the costs and birth outcomes associated with caseload midwifery compared to the two existing models of care, standard hospital care and private obstetric care.
methodsWe undertook a cross sectional study examining the risk profile, birth outcomes and cost of care for women booked into one of the three available models of care in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia between July 1st 2009 December 31st 2010. To control for differences in population or case mix we described the outcomes for a cohort of low risk first time mothers known as the 'standard primipara'.
resultsAmongst the 1,379 women defined as 'standard primipara' there were significant differences in birth outcome. These first time 'low risk' mothers who received caseload care were more likely to have a spontaneous onset of labour and an unassisted vaginal birth 58.5% in MGP compared to 48.2% for Standard hospital care and 30.8% with Private obstetric care (p < 0.001). They were also significantly less likely to have an elective caesarean section 1.6% with MGP versus 5.3% with Standard care and 17.2% with private obstetric care (p < 0.001). From the public hospital perspective, over one financial year the average cost of care for the standard primipara in MGP was $3903.78 per woman. This was $1375.45 less per woman than those receiving Private obstetric care and $1590.91 less than Standard hospital care per woman (p < 0.001). Similar differences in cost were found in favour of MGP for all women in the study who received caseload care.
conclusionsCost reduction appears to be achieved through reorganising the way care is delivered in the public hospital system with the introduction of Midwifery Group Practice or caseload care. The study also highlights the unexplained clinical variation that exists between the three models of care in Australia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.