Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: MANGO, a randomised controlled trial

Midwifery and Women's Health Research Unit, University of Sydney, Royal Hospital for Women, Randwick, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: .
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 45.22). 09/2013; 382(9906). DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61406-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Women at low risk of pregnancy complications benefit from continuity of midwifery care, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost outcomes of caseload midwifery care for women irrespective of risk factors.
In this unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial, pregnant women at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia were randomly assigned to either caseload midwifery care or standard maternity care by a telephone-based computer randomisation service. Women aged 18 years and older were eligible if they were less than 24 weeks pregnant at the first booking visit. Those who booked with another care provider, had a multiple pregnancy, or planned to have an elective caesarean section were excluded. Women allocated to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care from a named caseload midwife (or back-up caseload midwife). Controls received standard care with rostered midwives in discrete wards or clinics. The participant and the clinician were not masked to assignment. The main primary outcome was the proportion of women who had a caesarean section. The other primary maternal outcomes were the proportions who had an instrumental or unassisted vaginal birth, and the proportion who had epidural analgesia during labour. Primary neonatal outcomes were Apgar scores, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal intensive care. We analysed all outcomes by intention to treat. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246.
Publicly insured women were screened at the participating hospitals between Dec 8, 2008, and May 31, 2011. 1748 pregnant women were randomly assigned, 871 to caseload and 877 to standard care. The proportion of caesarean sections did not differ between the groups (183 [21%] in the caseload group vs 204 [23%] in the standard care group; odds ratio [OR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·70-1·10; p=0·26). The proportion of women who had elective caesarean sections (before onset of labour) differed significantly between caseload and standard care (69 [8%] vs 94 [11%]; OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·52-0·99; p=0·05). Proportions of instrumental birth were similar (172 [20%] vs 171 [19%]; p=0·90), as were the proportions of unassisted vaginal births (487 [56%] vs 454 [52%]; p=0·08) and epidural use (314 [36%] vs 304 [35%]; p=0·54). Neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Total cost of care per woman was AUS$566·74 (95% 106·17-1027·30; p=0·02) less for caseload midwifery than for standard maternity care.
Our results show that for women of any risk, caseload midwifery is safe and cost effective.
National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

Download full-text


Available from: Sally K Tracy, Nov 05, 2014
  • Source
    • "Continuity of care during pregnancy has also been identified as a major factor contributing to the welfare of pregnant women (Crafter et al., 1997), which can lead to improved health outcomes for both mother and child (Sandall et al., 2013). However, as with formal health literacy screening, continuity of midwifery care is often difficult to provide within established working practices and available resources (Tracy et al., 2013). Therefore, the use of media and communication technologies to provide information about pregnancy potentially forms a vital link between patients and health care providers (Raine et al., 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To examine the informal approaches taken by midwives and other antenatal staff to adapt health communication to the needs of their patients, as well as their perception of the barriers faced when trying to provide tailored health promotion. Design Qualitative research methods (participant observation, individual and group interviews) were utilised to gain an understanding of how media and communication resources were used in practice within the study hospital. Setting A major metropolitan teaching hospital located in the Northern suburbs of Adelaide, South Australia. Participants Individual semi-structured interviews with antenatal staff (n=8) were combined with group interviews (n=2; total number of staff=13), and observational research. Findings Midwives and other antenatal staff use a range of strategies to meet the perceived health literacy level of their patients. However, their attempts to tailor health information to individual needs are frequently based on incomplete information about patients' health literacy, may be inconsistent in delivery and contentand are seldom assessed to determine whether communication has been understood or led to patient behaviour change. Key conclusions Midwives fully recognise the need to adapt standard printed materials to meet the diverse health literacy needs of patients but lack the resources required to evaluate whether these adaptations have positive effect. Implications for practice Midwives' commitment to improving health communication provides a latent resource that institutions can build on to improve health outcomes for patients with low health literacy. This requires improvements in health communication training, willingness to use a range of validated instruments for measuring health literacy, and commitment to use of innovative approaches to health promotion where these have been shown to have a positive impact on health behaviours.
    Midwifery 01/2014; 31(1). DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2014.06.004 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Women and Birth 10/2011; 24. DOI:10.1016/j.wombi.2011.07.057 · 1.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: this paper describes the pilot study that was undertaken to test the feasibility of the recruitment plan designed to recruit women who booked to give birth in two freestanding midwifery units in NSW, Australia. The pilot preceded the full prospective cohort study, Evaluating Midwifery Units (EMU), which aimed to examine the antenatal, birth and postnatal outcomes of women planning to give birth in freestanding midwifery units compared to those booked to give birth in tertiary level maternity units in Australia and New Zealand.
    Midwifery 02/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2012.08.012 · 1.71 Impact Factor