Cargando…
A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options)
BACKGROUND: Australia has an enviable record of safety for women in childbirth. There is nevertheless growing concern at the increasing level of intervention and consequent morbidity amongst childbearing women. Not only do interventions impact on the cost of services, they carry with them the potent...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3235961/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22029746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-11-82 |
_version_ | 1782218663705706496 |
---|---|
author | Tracy, Sally K Hartz, Donna Hall, Bev Allen, Jyai Forti, Amanda Lainchbury, Anne White, Jan Welsh, Alec Tracy, Mark Kildea, Sue |
author_facet | Tracy, Sally K Hartz, Donna Hall, Bev Allen, Jyai Forti, Amanda Lainchbury, Anne White, Jan Welsh, Alec Tracy, Mark Kildea, Sue |
author_sort | Tracy, Sally K |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Australia has an enviable record of safety for women in childbirth. There is nevertheless growing concern at the increasing level of intervention and consequent morbidity amongst childbearing women. Not only do interventions impact on the cost of services, they carry with them the potential for serious morbidities for mother and infant. Models of midwifery have proliferated in an attempt to offer women less fragmented hospital care. One of these models that is gaining widespread consumer, disciplinary and political support is caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwives manage the care of approximately 35-40 a year within a small Midwifery Group Practice (usually 4-6 midwives who plan their on call and leave within the Group Practice.) We propose to compare the outcomes and costs of caseload midwifery care compared to standard or routine hospital care through a randomised controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-arm RCT design will be used. Women will be recruited from tertiary women's hospitals in Sydney and Brisbane, Australia. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive care from a named caseload midwife within a Midwifery Group Practice. Control women will be allocated to standard or routine hospital care. Women allocated to standard care will receive their care from hospital rostered midwives, public hospital obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. All midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary according to the woman's needs. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected at recruitment, 36 weeks antenatally, six weeks and six months postpartum by web based or postal survey. With 750 women or more in each of the intervention and control arms the study is powered (based on 80% power; alpha 0.05) to detect a difference in caesarean section rates of 29.4 to 22.9%; instrumental birth rates from 11.0% to 6.8%; and rates of admission to neonatal intensive care of all neonates from 9.9% to 5.8% (requires 721 in each arm). The study is not powered to detect infant or maternal mortality, however all deaths will be reported. Other significant findings will be reported, including a comprehensive process and economic evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000349246 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3235961 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-32359612011-12-13 A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options) Tracy, Sally K Hartz, Donna Hall, Bev Allen, Jyai Forti, Amanda Lainchbury, Anne White, Jan Welsh, Alec Tracy, Mark Kildea, Sue BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Australia has an enviable record of safety for women in childbirth. There is nevertheless growing concern at the increasing level of intervention and consequent morbidity amongst childbearing women. Not only do interventions impact on the cost of services, they carry with them the potential for serious morbidities for mother and infant. Models of midwifery have proliferated in an attempt to offer women less fragmented hospital care. One of these models that is gaining widespread consumer, disciplinary and political support is caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwives manage the care of approximately 35-40 a year within a small Midwifery Group Practice (usually 4-6 midwives who plan their on call and leave within the Group Practice.) We propose to compare the outcomes and costs of caseload midwifery care compared to standard or routine hospital care through a randomised controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-arm RCT design will be used. Women will be recruited from tertiary women's hospitals in Sydney and Brisbane, Australia. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive care from a named caseload midwife within a Midwifery Group Practice. Control women will be allocated to standard or routine hospital care. Women allocated to standard care will receive their care from hospital rostered midwives, public hospital obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. All midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary according to the woman's needs. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected at recruitment, 36 weeks antenatally, six weeks and six months postpartum by web based or postal survey. With 750 women or more in each of the intervention and control arms the study is powered (based on 80% power; alpha 0.05) to detect a difference in caesarean section rates of 29.4 to 22.9%; instrumental birth rates from 11.0% to 6.8%; and rates of admission to neonatal intensive care of all neonates from 9.9% to 5.8% (requires 721 in each arm). The study is not powered to detect infant or maternal mortality, however all deaths will be reported. Other significant findings will be reported, including a comprehensive process and economic evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000349246 BioMed Central 2011-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3235961/ /pubmed/22029746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-11-82 Text en Copyright ©2011 Tracy et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Tracy, Sally K Hartz, Donna Hall, Bev Allen, Jyai Forti, Amanda Lainchbury, Anne White, Jan Welsh, Alec Tracy, Mark Kildea, Sue A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options) |
title | A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options) |
title_full | A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options) |
title_fullStr | A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options) |
title_full_unstemmed | A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options) |
title_short | A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options) |
title_sort | randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: m@ngo (midwives @ new group practice options) |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3235961/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22029746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-11-82 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tracysallyk arandomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT hartzdonna arandomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT hallbev arandomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT allenjyai arandomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT fortiamanda arandomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT lainchburyanne arandomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT whitejan arandomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT welshalec arandomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT tracymark arandomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT kildeasue arandomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT tracysallyk randomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT hartzdonna randomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT hallbev randomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT allenjyai randomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT fortiamanda randomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT lainchburyanne randomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT whitejan randomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT welshalec randomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT tracymark randomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions AT kildeasue randomisedcontrolledtrialofcaseloadmidwiferycaremngomidwivesnewgrouppracticeoptions |