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.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Obstetric referral practices and health system factors in public health centres of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A mixed-methods study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Differences in maternal and perinatal outcomes between Dutch and non-Western women in a midwife-led care setting: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Audit and feedback to reduce unwarranted clinical variation at scale: a realist study of implementation strategy mechanisms.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Experiences, Beliefs, and Values Influencing Midwives' Attitudes Toward the Use of Childbirth Interventions.Journal of midwifery & women's health · 2022Article
- Knowledge and skills used for clinical decision-making on childbirth interventions: A qualitative study among midwives in the Netherlands.European journal of midwifery · 2022Article
- Modelling the cost of place of birth: a pathway analysis.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Health system redesign for maternal and newborn survival: rethinking care models to close the global equity gap.BMJ global health · 2020Review
- Detailed registration of care in midwifery practices in the Netherlands: an opportunity for research within a healthy pregnant population.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Unwarranted clinical variation in health care: Definitions and proposal of an analytic framework.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2020Review
- Towards a better understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care: A systematic scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands: a nationwide explorative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Creating an Optimality Index - Netherlands: a validation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Women's motivations for choosing a high risk birth setting against medical advice in the Netherlands: a qualitative analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- Article
- Factors influencing the clinical decision-making of midwives: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- Effect of planned place of birth on obstetric interventions and maternal outcomes among low-risk women: a cohort study in the Netherlands.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.