ArticleBMC nursing2025
Comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes of midwifery-led care with routine midwifery care: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of mother-friendly practices on maternal and fetal outcomes: a multicenter study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Is one midwife per birthing mother an achievable goal? Education and leadership pathways for midwifery models of care in the Middle East.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Review
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
introductionGlobally, the management of low-risk pregnancies by midwives often leads to a more natural childbirth process, which enhances physical and psychological outcomes for mothers and their babies. Midwives implement various models of maternal care in practice. This study investigates and compares maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with midwifery-led care versus routine midwifery care in private hospitals in Iran.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted in Iran in 2022. The study population consisted of two groups including 387 women in the Routine Care Group (RCG) and 397 women in the Private Care Group (PCG). Participants were selected through continuous sampling in accordance with the inclusion criteria. The two groups were compared in terms of some maternal and neonatal outcomes. The research data collection tool was a researcher-made checklist with variables adjusted according to the 'Iman' system of the Iran Ministry of Health. Based on this tool, the data were extracted from the mentioned system and analyzed with SPSS software.
findingsThe results indicated no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the type of delivery (p = 0.999), the use of forceps or vacuum (P = 0.5) and transferring the mother to the operating room (OR) or the intensive care unit (ICU) immediately after delivery (P = 0.744). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of labor pain control (P < 0.001), induction of labor (P < 0.001), and the use of episiotomy (P < 0.001). Regarding neonatal outcomes, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in relation to the average infant weight (P = 0.46), Apgar score (P = 0.75), need for resuscitation (P = 0.999), skin-to-skin contact (P = 0.626), initiation of breastfeeding (P = 0.241) and admission to the neonatal intensive care units (NICU) (P = 0.66).
conclusionGiven the positive impact of private care on key maternal outcomes, it is recommended that health policymakers create the conditions necessary for establishing a continuous midwifery care model in both governmental and private hospitals. Besides, more quantitative, qualitative, and especially mixed methods research should be conducted to explore the challenges and facilitators of this model across various settings.
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.