ArticleJournal of midwifery & women's health
Evaluation of a Shift Model Doula Program During Labor and Birth at a Large Volume, Safety-Net Teaching Hospital.
Article in Journal of midwifery & women's health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite documented benefits of doula support for patients and newborns, access remains limited. This evaluation examined patient and neonatal outcomes associated with a hospital-based, shift model of doula care.
methodsThis retrospective analysis was conducted on eligible births at a single, safety-net teaching hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2022. Patients who received doula care during labor and/or birth were compared with those who did not. Doulas were volunteers who self-scheduled shifts and provided support when available. Primary outcomes included cesarean birth and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Adjusted odds ratios were calculated to assess the association between doula presence and outcomes of interest.
resultsAmong 3055 eligible patients, 375 (12.2%) were offered doula support, and 355 (11.6% of total; 94.7% of those offered) accepted. Most patients were 25 to 34 years old (53.6%), were multiparous (67.2%), identified as Hispanic (65.7%), and had public insurance (82.5%). Patients who received doula support were more likely to identify as Black non-Hispanic or multiracial (P = .005). Labor complications, including chorioamnionitis, shoulder dystocia, and arrest of labor, were more frequent among those with doula support (18.9% vs 14.6%; P = .034), as was oxytocin augmentation (54.9% vs 37.0%; P <.001), and induction of labor (55.2% vs 37.1%, P <.001). NICU admissions were lower among doula-supported births, although not statistically significant (2.8% vs. 5.1%, P = .058). Doula-supported patients had lower odds of cesarean birth (11.8% vs 16.5%; P = .024; adjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97). DISCUSSION: Doula care provided through a shift-based hospital model was associated with a decreased cesarean birth rate despite increased labor complications, induction of labor, and oxytocin use. These findings suggest that even intermittent doula support may improve outcomes. Additional studies are warranted to further evaluate the impact of shift-based doula care models on perinatal outcomes.
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.