Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33945565›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2021

Project20: Does continuity of care and community-based antenatal care improve maternal and neonatal birth outcomes for women with social risk factors? A prospective, observational study.

Hannah Rayment-Jones, Kathryn Dalrymple, James Harris, Angela Harden, Elidh Parslow, Thomas Georgi, Jane Sandall

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hannah Rayment-JonesDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3027-8025
Kathryn DalrympleDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
James HarrisClinical Research Facility, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Angela HardenSchool of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Elidh ParslowSt Mary's Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas GeorgiSchool of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5735-9784
Jane SandallDepartment of Women and Children's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBCity, University of London · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2017-10-033Medical Research Council MR/V005839/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial factors associated with poor childbirth outcomes and experiences of maternity care include minority ethnicity, poverty, young motherhood, homelessness, difficulty speaking or understanding English, migrant or refugee status, domestic violence, mental illness and substance abuse. It is not known what specific aspects of maternity care work to improve the maternal and neonatal outcomes for these under-served, complex populations.

methodsThis study aimed to compare maternal and neonatal clinical birth outcomes for women with social risk factors accessing different models of maternity care. Quantitative data on pregnancy and birth outcome measures for 1000 women accessing standard care, group practice and specialist models of care at two large, inner-city maternity services were prospectively collected and analysed using multinominal regression. The level of continuity of care and place of antenatal care were used as independent variables to explore these potentially influential aspects of care. Outcomes adjusted for women's social and medical risk factors and the service attended.

resultsWomen who received standard maternity care were significantly less likely to use water for pain relief in labour (RR 0.11, CI 0.02-0.62) and have skin to skin contact with their baby shortly after birth (RR 0.34, CI 0.14-0.80) compared to the specialist model of care. Antenatal care based in the hospital setting was associated with a significant increase in preterm birth (RR 2.38, CI 1.32-4.27) and low birth weight (RR 2.31, CI 1.24-4.32), and a decrease in induction of labour (RR 0.65, CI 0.45-0.95) compared to community-based antenatal care, this was despite women's medical risk factors. A subgroup analysis found that preterm birth was increased further for women with the highest level of social risk accessing hospital-based antenatal care (RR 3.11, CI1.49-6.50), demonstrating the protective nature of community-based antenatal care.

conclusionsThis research highlights how community-based antenatal care, with a focus on continuity of carer reduced health inequalities and improved maternal and neonatal clinical outcomes for women with social risk factors. The findings support the current policy drive to increase continuity of midwife-led care, whilst adding that community-based care may further improve outcomes for women at increased risk of health inequalities. The relationship between community-based models of care and neonatal outcomes require further testing in future research. The identification of specific mechanisms such as help-seeking and reduced anxiety, to explain these findings are explored in a wider evaluation.

Indexed as

AdultCesarean SectionContinuity of Patient CareFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaternal Health ServicesMidwiferyMinority GroupsObstetricsPostnatal CarePregnancyPremature BirthPrenatal CareProspective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID33945565
PMCPMC8096106
OpenAlexW3158628766

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.