ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2026
Impact of Increasing Midwifery-Led Prenatal Care on Birth Outcomes: An Application of the g-Formula and Target Trial Emulation.
Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interpreting Impacts of Population-Level Interventions in the Presence of Exposure Misclassification.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundCompared to undergoing prenatal care with a physician, care with a midwife reduces the risk of medical interventions and complications during labor and delivery among low-risk pregnant individuals. However, many analyses that assess the relationship between midwifery-led care and birth outcomes condition on live births, potentially inducing a type of collider bias.
objectiveThe objective was to analyse the change in prevalence of caesarean deliveries, primary and secondary postpartum haemorrhage, obstetric trauma, and maternal infection under hypothetical scenarios where midwifery-led prenatal care was increased.
methodsOur sample included commercially insured, midwifery-eligible pregnant people in an insurance claims data source. We used g-computation to assess the change in prevalence of caesarean deliveries, primary and secondary postpartum haemorrhage, obstetric trauma, and maternal infection if 10%, 20%, and 50% more pregnant people enrolled in prenatal care with a midwife rather than a physician, among a cohort of low-risk pregnant people with commercial insurance in the U.S. between 2004 and 2015.
resultsWith a 50% increase in midwifery-led care compared with no increase, we found the prevalence of caesarean deliveries was reduced by 5.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] -5.7, -5.1) and of maternal infection decreased by 1.3 percentage points (95% CI -1.6, -1.0), while the prevalence of primary postpartum haemorrhage increased by 0.5 percentage points (95% CI 0.4, 0.6) and of secondary postpartum haemorrhage increased by 0.6 percentage points (95% CI 0.4, 0.7).
conclusionsIncreasing midwifery-led prenatal care reduced the prevalence of caesarean deliveries and maternal infections and slightly increased the prevalence of primary and secondary postpartum haemorrhage. Our results were similar to those of studies among live birth cohorts.
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.