ArticleJournal of midwifery & women's health2021
Client Experience with the Ontario Birth Center Demonstration Project.
Article in Journal of midwifery & women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods to derive composite indicators used for quality and safety measurement and monitoring in healthcare: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Pooled it
- Infant feeding experiences among Indigenous communities in Canada, the United States, Australia, and Aotearoa: a scoping review of the qualitative literature.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Midwifery continuity of care: A scoping review of where, how, by whom and for whom?PLOS global public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn 2014, 2 new freestanding midwifery-led birth centers opened in Ontario, Canada. As one part of a larger mixed-methods evaluation of the first year of operations of the centers, our primary objective was to compare the experiences of women receiving midwifery care who intended to give birth at the new birth centers with those intending to give birth at home or in hospital.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of women cared for by midwives with admitting privileges at one of the 2 birth centers. Consenting women received the survey 3 to 6 weeks after their due date. We stratified the analysis by intended place of birth at the beginning of labor, regardless of where the actual birth occurred. One composite indicator was created (Composite Satisfaction Score, out of 20), and statistical significance (P < .05) was assessed using one-way analysis of variance. Responses to the open-ended questions were reviewed and grouped into broader categories.
resultsIn total, 382 women completed the survey (response rate 54.6%). Half intended to give birth at a birth center (n = 191). There was a significant difference on the Composite Satisfaction Scores between the birth center (19.4), home (19.5), and hospital (18.9) groups (P < .001). Among women who intended to give birth in a birth center, scores were higher in the women admitted to the birth center compared with those who were not (P = .037). Overall, women giving birth at a birth center were satisfied with the learners present at their birth, the accessibility of the centers, and the physical amenities, and they had suggestions for minor improvements. DISCUSSION: We found positive experiences and high satisfaction among women receiving midwifery care, regardless of intended place of birth. Women admitted to the birth centers had positive experiences with these new centers; however, future research should be planned to reassess and further understand women's experiences.
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.