Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25885706›Full record

Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

Variation in referrals to secondary obstetrician-led care among primary midwifery care practices in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study.

Pien M Offerhaus, Caroline Geerts, Ank de Jonge, Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven, Jos W R Twisk, Antoine L M Lagro-Janssen

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Pien M OfferhausKNOV (Royal Dutch Organisation for Midwives), P.O. Box 2001, 3500GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands. pofferhaus@knov.nl.
Caroline GeertsDepartment of Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. c.geerts@vumc.nl.
Ank de JongeDepartment of Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. ank.dejonge@vumc.nl.
Chantal W P M HukkelhovenPRN (the Netherlands Perinatal Registry), P.O. Box 8588, 3503RN, Utrecht, the Netherlands. chukkelhoven@perinatreg.nl.
Jos W R TwiskDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007MB, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. jwr.twisk@vumc.nl.
Antoine L M Lagro-JanssenRadboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Internal postal code 118, P.O. Box 9101, 6500HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Toine.Lagro@radboudumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe primary aim of this study was to describe the variation in intrapartum referral rates in midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Secondly, we wanted to explore the association between the practice referral rate and a woman's chance of an instrumental birth (caesarean section or vaginal instrumental birth).

methodsWe performed an observational study, using the Dutch national perinatal database. Low risk births in all primary care midwifery practices over the period 2008-2010 were selected. Intrapartum referral rates were calculated. The referral rate among nulliparous women was used to divide the practices in three tertile groups. In a multilevel logistic regression analysis the association between the referral rate and the chance of an instrumental birth was examined.

resultsThe intrapartum referral rate varied from 9.7 to 63.7 percent (mean 37.8; SD 7.0), and for nulliparous women from 13.8 to 78.1 percent (mean 56.8; SD 8.4). The variation occurred predominantly in non-urgent referrals in the first stage of labour. In the practices in the lowest tertile group more nulliparous women had a spontaneous vaginal birth compared to the middle and highest tertile group (T1: 77.3%, T2:73.5%, T3: 72.0%). For multiparous women the spontaneous vaginal birth rate was 97%. Compared to the lowest tertile group the odds ratios for nulliparous women for an instrumental birth were 1.22 (CI 1.16-1.31) and 1.33 (CI 1.25-1.41) in the middle and high tertile groups. This association was no longer significant after controlling for obstetric interventions (pain relief or augmentation).

conclusionsThe wide variation between referral rates may not be explained by medical factors or client characteristics alone. A high intrapartum referral rate in a midwifery practice is associated with an increased chance of an instrumental birth for nulliparous women, which is mediated by the increased use of obstetric interventions. Midwives should critically evaluate their referral behaviour. A high referral rate may indicate that more interventions are applied than necessary. This may lead to a lower chance of a spontaneous vaginal birth and a higher risk on a PPH. However, a low referral rate should not be achieved at the cost of perinatal safety.

Indexed as

Delivery, ObstetricObstetric Labor ComplicationsPrenatal CareSecondary Health CareAdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMidwiferyNetherlandsParityPregnancyPregnancy Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25885706
PMCPMC4342018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.