Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1/1971
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBullard, Marian-
dc.contributor.otherHomer, C.S.E.-
dc.contributor.otherDavis, D.L.-
dc.contributor.otherMollart, L.-
dc.contributor.otherTurkmani, S.-
dc.contributor.otherSmith, R.M.-
dc.contributor.otherLeiser, B.-
dc.contributor.otherFoureur, M.-
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-25T04:21:20Z-
dc.date.available2021-06-25T04:21:20Z-
dc.date.issued2021-06-
dc.identifier.citation35(3):e294-e301en
dc.identifier.issn1871-5192en
dc.identifier.urihttps://elibrary.cclhd.health.nsw.gov.au/cclhdjspui/handle/1/1971-
dc.description.abstractPROBLEM AND BACKGROUND: Caesarean section (CS) rates in Australia and many countries worldwide are high and increasing, with elective repeat caesarean section a significant contributor. AIM: To determine whether midwifery continuity of care for women with a previous CS increases the proportion of women who plan to attempt a vaginal birth in their current pregnancy. METHODS: A randomised controlled design was undertaken. Women who met the inclusion criteria were randomised to one of two groups; the Community Midwifery Program (CMP) (continuity across the full spectrum - antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum) (n=110) and the Midwifery Antenatal Care (MAC) Program (antenatal continuity of care) (n=111) using a remote randomisation service. Analysis was undertaken on an intention to treat basis. The primary outcome measure was the rate of attempted vaginal birth after caesarean section and secondary outcomes included composite measures of maternal and neonatal wellbeing. FINDINGS: The model of care did not significantly impact planned vaginal birth at 36 weeks (CMP 66.7% vs MAC 57.3%) or success rate (CMP 27.8% vs MAC 32.7%). The rate of maternal and neonatal complications was similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Model of care did not significantly impact the proportion of women attempting VBAC in this study. The similarity in the number of midwives seen antenatally and during labour and birth suggests that these models of care had more similarities than differences and that the model of continuity could be described as informational continuity. Future research should focus on the impact of relationship based continuity of care.en
dc.description.sponsorshipObstetrics & Gynaecologyen
dc.subjectMidwiferyen
dc.titleMidwifery continuity of care and vaginal birth after caesarean section: A randomised controlled trialen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.wombi.2021.05.010en
dc.description.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103270/en
dc.description.affiliatesCentral Coast Local Health Districten
dc.identifier.journaltitleWomen and Birth : Journal of the Australian College of Midwivesen
dc.identifier.journaltitleWomen & Birthen
dc.type.studyortrialRandomized Controlled Clinical Trial/Controlled Clinical Trialen
dc.originaltypeTexten
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
Appears in Collections:Obstetrics / Paediatrics
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

106
checked on Mar 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.