Get access

Midwifery-led versus other models of care delivery for childbearing women

  • Protocol
  • Intervention

Authors

  • M Hatem,

  • ED Hodnett,

  • D Devane,

  • WD Fraser,

  • J Sandall,

  • H Soltani


Marie Hatem, Professeure adjointe, Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Université de Montréal, Faculté de médecine, C.P 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, CANADA. marie.hatem@umontreal.ca.

Abstract

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows:

The primary objective of this review is to compare midwifery-led models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.

The secondary objectives are:
1) to compare specific midwifery models of care, such as caseload and team midwifery with other models of care;
2) to determine whether the outcomes of the midwifery models of care are influenced by whether midwives' scope of practice include women of varying levels of obstetrical risk;
3) to determine whether the outcomes of the models are influenced by the setting of practice (community based, hospital based, birth centre, etc.).

The following null-hypotheses will be investigated:

  • Midwifery-led and other models of care are similar with respect to rates of intervention, use of analgesia and mode of birth.

  • Midwifery-led and other models of care are similar with respect to the risks of neonatal morbidity, perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity and maternal satisfaction.

  • Caseload, team models and shared midwifery-led care are similar with respect to rates of intervention, use of analgesia and mode of birth.

  • Caseload, team models and shared midwifery-led care are similar with respect to the risks of neonatal morbidity, perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity and maternal satisfaction.

  • Maternal risk status does not influence the outcome of the models of care.

  • The setting of practice does not influence the outcome of the models of care.