Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28851782›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Evaluating Maternity Units: a prospective cohort study of freestanding midwife-led primary maternity units in New Zealand-clinical outcomes.

Celia P Grigg, Sally K Tracy, Mark Tracy, Rea Daellenbach, Mary Kensington, Amy Monk, Virginia Schmied

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Celia P GriggDivision of Midwifery, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Sally K TracyUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Mark TracyUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Rea DaellenbachAra Institute of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Mary KensingtonAra Institute of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Amy MonkUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Virginia SchmiedSchool of Nursing and Midwifery and the Family and Community Health, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare maternal and neonatal birth outcomes and morbidities associated with the intention to give birth in a freestanding primary level midwife-led maternity unit (PMU) or tertiary level obstetric-led maternity hospital (TMH) in Canterbury, Aotearoa/New Zealand.

designProspective cohort study.

participants407 women who intended to give birth in a PMU and 285 women who intended to give birth at the TMH in 2010-2011. All of the women planning a TMH birth were 'low risk', and 29 of the PMU cohort had identified risk factors. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Mode of birth, Apgar score of less than 7 at 5 min and neonatal unit admission. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: labour onset, analgesia, blood loss, third stage of labour management, perineal trauma, non-pharmacological pain relief, neonatal resuscitation, breastfeeding, gestational age at birth, birth weight, severe morbidity and mortality.

resultsWomen who planned a PMU birth were significantly more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (77.9%vs62.3%, adjusted OR (AOR) 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.39), and significantly less likely to have an instrumental assisted vaginal birth (10.3%vs20.4%, AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.93). The emergency and elective caesarean section rates were not significantly different (emergency: PMU 11.6% vs TMH 17.5%, AOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.40; elective: PMU 0.7% vs TMH 2.1%, AOR 0.34, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.41). There were no significant differences between the cohorts in rates of 5 min Apgar score of <7 (2.0%vs2.1%, AOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.52) and neonatal unit admission (5.9%vs4.9%, AOR 1.44, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.96). Planning to give birth in a primary unit was associated with similar or reduced odds of intrapartum interventions and similar odds of all measured neonatal well-being indicators.

conclusionsThe results of this study support freestanding midwife-led primary-level maternity units as physically safe places for well women to plan to give birth, with these women having higher rates of spontaneous vaginal births and lower rates of interventions and their associated morbidities than those who planned a tertiary hospital birth, with no differences in neonatal outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultApgar ScoreBirthing CentersDelivery, ObstetricDelivery RoomsFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLabor, ObstetricLogistic ModelsMaleMidwiferyMultivariate AnalysisNew ZealandPatient SatisfactionPerinatal Careclinical outcomesfreestandingmidwife-ledNew Zealandprimary maternity unittertiary hospital

Identifiers

PMID28851782
PMCPMC5634452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.