Clinical, psychosocial, and economic effects of antenatal day care for three medical complications of pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial of 395 women. Simulated home delivery in hospital: a randomised controlled trial. A randomised controlled trial comparing two schedules of antenatal visits: the antenatal care project. The Stockholm birth centre trial: maternal and infant outcome. Collaboration in maternity care: a randomised controlled trial comparing community-based continuity of care with standard hospital care. A randomised controlled trial of admission electronic fetal monitoring in normal labour. Randomised controlled trial of two antenatal care models in rural Zimbabwe. Randomised controlled trial of a reduced-visits programme of antenatal care in Harare, Zimbabwe. Team midwifery care in a tertiary level obstetric service: a randomized controlled trial.
Day care is increasingly being used for complications of pregnancy, but there is little published evidence on its efficacy. We assessed the clinical, psychosocial, and economic effects of day care for three pregnancy complications in a randomised trial of day care versus standard care on an antenatal ward.
                395 women were randomly assigned day (263) or ward (132) care in a ratio of two to one, stratified for major diagnostic categories (non-proteinuric hypertension, proteinuric hypertension, and preterm premature rupture of membranes). The research hypothesis was that for these disorders, as an alternative to admission, antenatal day care will reduce specified interventions and investigations, result in no differences in clinical outcome, lead to greater satisfaction and psychological wellbeing, and be more cost-effective. Data were collected through case-note review, self-report questionnaires (response rates 81.0% or higher) and via the hospital's financial system. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                All participants were included in the analyses. There were no differences between the groups in antenatal tests or investigations or intrapartum interventions. The total duration of antenatal care episodes was shorter in the day-care group than in the ward group (median 17 [IQR 5-9] vs 57 [35-123] h; p=0.001). Overall stay was also significantly shorter in the day-care group (mean 7.22 [SE 0.31] vs 8.53 [0.44]; p=0.014). The median number of care episodes was three (range one to 14) in the day-care group and two (one to nine) in the ward group (p=0.01). There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes. The day-care group reported greater satisfaction, with no evidence of unintended psychosocial sequelae. There was no significant difference in either average cost per patient or average cost per day of care.
                Since clinical outcomes and costs are similar, adoption by maternity services of a policy providing specified women with the choice between admission and day-unit care seems appropriate. To compare the outcome of two methods of maternity care during the antenatal period and at delivery. One was to be midwife-led for both antenatal care and delivery, the latter taking place in rooms similar to those in one's own home to simulate home confinement. The other would be consultant-led with the mothers labouring in the delivery suite rooms with resuscitation equipment for both mother and baby in evidence, monitors present and a delivery bed on which both anaesthetic and obstetric procedures could be easily and safely carried out.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Leicester Royal Infirmary Maternity Hospital.
                Of 3510 women who were randomised, 2304 were assigned to the midwife-led scheme and 1206 were assigned to the consultant-led scheme.
                Complications in the antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum periods were compared as was maternal morbidity and fetal mortality and morbidity. Satisfaction of the women with care over different periods of the pregnancy and birth were assessed.
                There were few significant differences in antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum events between the two groups. There was no difference in the percentage of mothers and babies discharged home alive and well. Generally higher levels of satisfaction with care antenatally and during labour and delivery were shown in those women allocated to midwife care. To compare the clinical and psychological effectiveness of the traditional British antenatal visit schedule (traditional care) with a reduced schedule of visits (new style care) for low risk women, together with maternal and professional satisfaction with care.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Places in south east London providing antenatal care for women receiving shared care and planning to deliver in one of three hospitals or at home.
                2794 women at low risk fulfilling the trial's inclusion criteria between June 1993 and July 1994.
                Measures of fetal and maternal morbidity, health service use, psychosocial outcomes, and maternal and professional satisfaction.
                Pregnant women allocated to new style care had fewer day admissions (0.8 v 1.0; P=0.002) and ultrasound scans (1.6 v 1.7; P=0.003) and were less often suspected of carrying fetuses that were small for gestational age (odds ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.99). They also had some poorer psychosocial outcomes; for example, they were more worried about fetal wellbeing antenatally and coping with the baby postnatally, and they had more negative attitudes to their babies, both in pregnancy and postnatally. These women were also more dissatisfied with the number of visits they received (odds ratio 2.50; 2.00 to 3.11).
                Patterns of antenatal care involving fewer routine visits for women at low risk may lead to reduced psychosocial effectiveness and dissatisfaction with frequency of visits. The number of antenatal day admissions and ultrasound scans performed may also be reduced. For the variables reported, the visit schedules studied are similar in their clinical effectiveness. Uncertainty remains as to the clinical effectiveness of reduced visit schedules for rare pregnancy problems. To compare an in-hospital birth centre with standard maternity care regarding medical interventions and maternal and infant outcome.
                The birth centre care was characterised by comprehensive antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care with the same team of midwives, restricted use of medical technology, and discharge within 24 h after birth.
                Of 1860 women meeting low risk medical criteria in early pregnancy and interested in birth centre care, 928 were randomly allotted birth centre care and 932 standard maternity care. Data were collected mainly from hospital records, and analysis was by intention-to-treat.
                Of the women in the birth centre group, 13% were transferred antenatally and 19% intrapartum. No statistical differences were observed in maternal morbidity or in perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, Apgar score or infant admissions to neonatal care. Perinatal mortality, defined as intrauterine death after 22 weeks of gestation and infant death within seven days of birth, occurred in eight cases (0.9%) in the birth centre group and in two cases (0.2%) in the standard care group (OR 4.04, 95% CI 0.80 to 39.17; P = 0.11). Subgroup analysis showed that a larger proportion of first-born babies in the birth centre group (15.6%) were admitted for neonatal care than in the standard care group (9.5%) (P = 0.003), whereas the converse was the case for the newborns of multiparous women: 4.7% and 8.4%, respectively (P = 0.04). The overall rates of operative delivery (e.g. caesarean section, vacuum extraction and forceps), 11.1% in the birth centre group and 13.4% in the standard care group, did not differ statistically (P = 0.12), but obstetric analgesia, induction, augmentation of labour and electronic fetal monitoring were less frequently used in the birth centre group. Labour was 1 h longer in the birth centre group.
                Birth centre care was associated with less medical interventions than standard care without any statistically significant differences in health outcomes. However, the excess of perinatal deaths and of morbidity in primigravidas' infants in the birth centre group gives cause for concern and necessitates further studies. To test whether a new community-based model of continuity of care provided by midwives and obstetricians improved maternal clinical outcomes, in particular a reduced caesarean section rate.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                A public teaching hospital in metropolitan Sydney, Australia. Sample 1089 women randomised to either the community-based model (n = 550) or standard hospital-based care (n = 539) prior to their first antenatal booking visit at an Australian metropolitan public hospital.
                Data were collected on onset and outcomes of labour, antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal complications, antenatal admissions to hospital and neonatal mortality and morbidity.
                There was a significant difference in the caesarean section rate between the groups, 13.3% (73/550) in the community-based group and 17.8% in the control group (96/539). This difference was maintained after controlling for known contributing factors to caesarean section (OR = 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.9, P = 0.02). There were no other significant differences in the events during labour and birth. Eighty babies (14.5%) from the community-based group and 102 (18.9%) from the control group were admitted to the special care nursery, but this difference was not significant (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.5-1.1, P = 0.12). Eight infants died during the perinatal period (four from each group), for an overall perinatal mortality rate of 7.3 per 1000 births.
                Community-based continuity of maternity care provided by midwives and obstetricians resulted in a significantly reduced caesarean section rate. There were no other differences in clinical outcomes. To test the hypothesis that the use of admission Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM) for healthy pregnant women in spontaneous labour would result in an increase in continuous EFM when compared to women who have had no admission EFM.
                A randomised controlled trial.
                The Midwives Birth Unit in Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital, a major urban teaching hospital with approximately 5000 births per year.
                Healthy pregnant women admitted in normal labour, deemed low risk based on the midwives' birth unit admission criteria.
                Women were randomly allocated either to receive a routine 20-minute period of EFM at the time of admission (control group), or to receive no routine admission EFM (study group).
                Primary study outcomes, use of continuous EFM; and use of EFM additional to the admission test. Secondary outcomes: artificial rupture of membranes, use of fetal scalp electrode, fetal blood sample, syntocinon, epidural analgesia, number of vaginal examinations, rate of transfer to labour ward, and reason for transfer.
                There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for use of continuous monitoring, but significantly more women in the control group did receive additional EFM. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for any of the interventions studied.
                The use of admission EFM did not in itself lead to a cascade of intervention. Other factors including setting of care and philosophy of caregivers may have an effect on the rate of intervention in labour. To compare a five-visit antenatal care (ANC) model with specified goals with the standard model in a rural area in Zimbabwe.
                Cluster randomised controlled trial with the clinic as the randomisation unit.
                Primary care setting in a developing country where care was provided by nurse-midwives.
                Women booking for ANC in the clinics were eligible.
                Number of antenatal visits, antepartum and intrapartum referrals, utilization of health centre for delivery and perinatal outcomes.
                Twenty-three rural health centres were stratified prior to random allocation to the new (n = 11) or standard (n = 12) model of care.
                We recruited 13,517 women (new, n = 6897 and standard, n = 6620) in the study, and 78% (10,572) of their pregnancy records were retrieved. There was no difference in median maternal age, parity and gestational age at booking between women in the standard model and those in the new model. The median number of visits was four for both models. The proportion of women with five or less visits was 77% in the new and 69% in the standard model (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.08-2.2). The likelihood of haemoglobin testing was higher in the new model (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.0-5.7) but unchanged for syphilis testing. There were fewer intrapartum transfers (5.4 versus 7.9% [OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.44-0.98]) in the new model but no difference in antepartum or postpartum transfers. There was no difference in rates of preterm delivery or low birthweight. The perinatal mortality was 25/1000 in standard model and 28/1000 in new model.
                In Gutu district, a focused five-visit schedule did not change the number of contacts but was more effective as expressed by increased adherence to procedures and better use of institutional health care. Many of the individual components of antenatal care have been studied in randomised controlled trials, but few studies have compared whole programmes of antenatal care. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that a new programme of antenatal care with fewer goal-oriented visits would give an equivalent or better result in the outcomes associated with pregnancy and delivery.
                In a randomised clinical trial in Harare, Zimbabwe, we compared a new programme of antenatal care with the standard programme. The new programme consisted of fewer but more objectively oriented visits and fewer procedures per visit. Seven primary care clinics were randomly assigned to the two programmes-three to the standard programme and four to the new programme.
                Over a 2-year period, 15,994 women were recruited into the study at the time they booked antenatal care. 97% of the women were followed up, 9,394 who had followed the new programme, and 6,138 from clinics with the standard one. Women allocated to the new programme made, as planned, fewer visits than those in the standard programme (median 4 vs 6 visits, respectively). The proportion of antenatal referrals was also lower (13.6 vs 15.3%; odds ratio 0.87 [95% CI 0.79-0.95]) because of significantly fewer referrals for pregnancy-induced hypertension (2.5 vs 3.8%; 0.66 [0.55-0.79]). Nevertheless, there were significantly fewer labour referrals for severe hypertension or eclampsia (2.1 vs 2.6%; 0.81 [0.66-1.00]). The risk for preterm (< 37 weeks) delivery was significantly lower for women on the new programme (10.1 vs 11.5%; 0.86 [0.78-0.96]). There were no other significant differences between the programmes in other major indices of pregnancy outcome, including antenatal referrals for other causes, labour referrals, obstetric interventions, low birthweight, and perinatal and maternal mortality and morbidity.
                An antenatal care programme with fewer more objectively oriented visits can be introduced without adverse effects on the main intermediate outcome pregnancy variables. In 1996 a new model of maternity care characterized by continuity of midwifery care from early pregnancy through to the postpartum period was implemented for women attending Monash Medical Centre, a tertiary level obstetric service, in Melbourne, Australia. The objective of this study was to compare the new model of care with standard maternity care.
                In a randomized controlled trial, 1000 women who booked at the antenatal clinic and met the eligibility criteria were randomly allocated to receive continuity of midwifery care (team care) from a group of seven midwives in collaboration with obstetric staff, or care from a variety of midwives and obstetric staff (standard care). The primary outcome measures were procedures in labor, maternal outcomes, neonatal outcomes, and length of hospital stay.
                Women assigned to the team care group experienced less augmentation of labor, less electronic fetal monitoring, less use of narcotic and epidural analgesia, and fewer episiotomies but more unsutured tears. Team care women stayed in hospital 7 hours less than women in standard care. More babies of standard care mothers were admitted to the special care nurseries for more than 5 days because of preterm birth, and more babies of team care mothers were admitted to the nurseries for more than 5 days with intrauterine growth retardation. No differences occurred in perinatal mortality between the two groups.
                Continuity of midwifery care was associated with a reduction in medical procedures in labor and a shorter length of stay without compromising maternal and perinatal safety. Continuity of midwifery care is realistically achievable in a tertiary obstetric referral service.
Small studies suggest that there are no major differences in clinical outcomes for mothers or babies between antenatal day units or hospital admission, but women may prefer day care.