ArticleAmerican journal of public health1997
Interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women.
Article in American journal of public health, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 123 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of a patient decision aid for prenatal screening for Down syndrome: what do pregnant women say?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- Outcomes of deliveries by family physicians or obstetricians: a population-based cohort study using an instrumental variable.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2015Article
- Mix of Maternity Care Providers in Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2015Article
- A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Low-Risk Deliveries: A Comparison of Midwives, Family Physicians and Obstetricians.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2015Article
- The influence of preferred place of birth on the course of pregnancy and labor among healthy nulliparous women: a prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2015Article
- Maternal clinical diagnoses and hospital variation in the risk of cesarean delivery: analyses of a National US Hospital Discharge Database.PLoS medicine · 2014Article
- Examining the pathways of pre- and postnatal health information.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2012Article
- Patient-level analysis of outcomes using structured labor and delivery data.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2009Article
- A hospital-based doula program and childbirth outcomes in an urban, multicultural setting.Maternal and child health journal · 2008Article
- Accuracy of birth certificate and hospital discharge data: a certified nurse-midwife and physician comparison.Maternal and child health journal · 2007Article
- The midwife as an "Instrument" of care.American journal of public health · 2002Article
- The practice of nurse-midwifery in the era of managed care: reports from the field.Maternal and child health journal · 2002Article
- Does delivery volume of family physicians predict maternal and newborn outcome?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2002Article
- Problems in recruiting community-based physicians for health services research.Journal of general internal medicine · 2000Article
- Characteristics of nurse-midwife patients and visits, 1991.American journal of public health · 1999Article
- How well do birth certificates describe the pregnancies they report? The Washington State experience with low-risk pregnancies.Maternal and child health journal · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study examined differences among obstetricians, family physicians, and certified nurse-midwives in the patterns of obstetric care provided to low-risk patients.
methodsFor a random sample of Washington State obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians, and certified nurse-midwives, records of a random sample of their low-risk patients beginning care between September 1, 1988, and August 31, 1989, were abstracted.
resultsCertified nurse-midwives were less likely to use continuous electronic fetal monitoring and had lower rates of labor induction or augmentation than physicians. Certified nurse-midwives also were less likely than physicians to use epidural anesthesia. The cesarean section rate for patients of certified nurse-midwives was 8.8% vs 13.6% for obstetricians and 15.1% for family physicians. Certified nurse-midwives used 12.2% fewer resources. There was little difference between the practice patterns of obstetricians and family physicians.
conclusionsThe low-risk patients of certified nurse-midwives in Washington State received fewer obstetrical interventions than similar patients cared for by obstetrician-gynecologists or family physicians. These differences are associated with lower cesarean section rates and less resource use.
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.