References

Allen J, Gibbons K, Beckmann M, Tracy M, Stapleton H, Kildea S. Does model of maternity care make a difference to birth outcomes for young women? A retrospective cohort study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015; 52:(8)1332-42 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.04.011

Allen J, Kildea S, Stapleton H. How optimal caseload midwifery can modify predictors for preterm birth in young women: Integrated findings from a mixed methods study. Midwifery. 2016; 41:30-8 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2016.07.012

Avery MD, Saftner MA, Larson B, Weinfurter EV. A systematic review of maternal confidence for physiologic birth: characteristics of prenatal care and confidence measurement. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014; 59:(6)586-95 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12269

Backes CH, Huang H, Iams JD, Bauer JA, Giannone PJ. Timing of umbilical cord clamping among infants born at 22 through 27 weeks’ gestation. J Perinatol. 2016; 36:(1)35-40 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2015.117

Begley CM. Intervention or interference? The need for expectant care throughout normal labour. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2014; 5:(4)160-4 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2014.10.004

Begley CM, Guilliland K, Dixon L, Reilly M, Keegan C. Irish and New Zealand midwives’ expertise in expectant management of the third stage of labour: The ‘MEET’ study. Midwifery. 2012; 28:(6)733-9 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2011.08.008

Begley CM, Gyte GM, Devane D, McGuire W, Weeks A. Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (3) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd007412.pub4

Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016; 11:(2) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343

Boyle S, Thomas H, Brooks F. Women’s views on partnership working with midwives during pregnancy and childbirth. Midwifery. 2016; 32:21-9 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2015.09.001

Browne J, O’Brien M, Taylor J, Bowman R, Davis D. ‘You’ve got it within you’: The political act of keeping a wellness focus in the antenatal time. Midwifery. 2014; 30:(4)420-6 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.04.003

Butler MM. Exploring the strategies that midwives in British Columbia use to promote normal birth. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1323-7

Daemers DO, Van Limbeek EB, Wijnen HA, Nieuwenhuijze MJ, De Vries RG. Factors influencing the clinical decision-making of midwives: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1511–5

Dahlen HG. The politicisation of risk. Midwifery. 2016; 38:6-8 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2016.05.011

Dahlen HG, Caplice S. What do midwives fear?. Women Birth. 2014; 27:(4)266-70 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2014.06.008

Dahlen H, Kennedy H, Anderson C. The EPIIC hypothesis: Intrapartum effects on the neonatal epigenome and consequent health outcomes. Med Hypotheses. 2013; 80:(5)656-62 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2013.01.017

Dahlen HG, Downe S, Kennedy HP, Foureur M. Is society being reshaped on a microbiological and epigenetic level by the way women give birth?. Midwifery. 2014; 30:(12)1149-51 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2014.07.007

Dawson K, Newton M, Forster D, McLachlan H. Comparing caseload and non-caseload midwives’ burnout levels and professional attitudes: A national, cross-sectional survey of Australian midwives working in the public maternity system. Midwifery. 2018; 63:60-7 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2018.04.026

Dixon L, Tracy SK, Guilliland K, Fletcher L, Hendry C, Pairman S. Outcomes of physiological and active third stage labour care amongst women in New Zealand. Midwifery. 2013; 29:(1)67-74 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2011.11.003

Duley L, Uhm S, Oliver S. Top 15 UK research priorities for preterm birth. Lancet. 2014; 383:(9934)2041-2 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60989-2

Erickson EN, Lee CS, Grose E, Emeis C. Physiologic childbirth and active management of the third stage of labor: A latent class model of risk for postpartum hemorrhage. Birth. 2018; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12384

Fenwick J, Sidebotham M, Gamble J, Creedy DK. The emotional and professional wellbeing of Australian midwives: A comparison between those providing continuity of midwifery care and those not providing continuity. Women Birth. 2018; 31:(1)38-43 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2017.06.013

Forster DA, McLachlan HL, Davey MA Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) increases women’s satisfaction with antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care: results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016; 16:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0798-y

Healy S, Humphreys E, Kennedy C. A qualitative exploration of how midwives’ and obstetricians’ perception of risk affects care practices for low-risk women and normal birth. Women Birth. 2017; 30:(5)367-75 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2017.02.005

Homer CS. Models of maternity care: evidence for midwifery continuity of care. Med J Aust. 2016; 205:(8)370-4 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5694/mja16.00844

Homer CS, Leap N, Edwards N, Sandall J. Midwifery continuity of carer in an area of high socio-economic disadvantage in London: A retrospective analysis of Albany Midwifery Practice outcomes using routine data (1997–2009). Midwifery. 2017; 48:1-10 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2017.02.009

Hooper SB, Binder-Heschl C, Polglase GR The timing of umbilical cord clamping at birth: physiological considerations. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2016; 2 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s40748-016-0032-y

Jelin AC, Zlatnik MG, Kuppermann M, Gregorich SE, Nakagawa S, Clyman R. Clamp late and maintain perfusion (CLAMP) policy: delayed cord clamping in preterm infants. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29:(11)1705-9 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1061496

Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018; 15:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002494

Leap N, Sandall J, Buckland S, Huber U. Journey to confidence: women’s experiences of pain in labour and relational continuity of care. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010; 55:(3)234-42 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2010.02.001

Magne F, Puchi Silva A, Carvajal B, Gotteland M. The elevated rate of cesarean section and its contribution to non-communicable chronic diseases in Latin America: the growing involvement of the microbiota. Front Pediatr. 2017; 5 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2017.00192

Marshall JL, Spiby H, McCormick F. Evaluating the ‘Focus on Normal Birth and Reducing Caesarean section Rates Rapid Improvement Programme’: A mixed method study in England. Midwifery. 2015; 31:(2)332-40 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2014.10.005

McLachlan H, Forster D, Davey M. The effect of primary midwife-led care on women’s experience of childbirth: results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2015; 123:(3)465-74 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13713

Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M. Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. The Lancet. 2016; 388:(10056)2176-92 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31472-6

Neerland CE. Maternal confidence for physiologic childbirth: a concept analysis. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12719

Newton MS, McLachlan HL, Willis KF, Forster DA. Comparing satisfaction and burnout between caseload and standard care midwives: findings from two cross-sectional surveys conducted in Victoria, Australia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-014-0426-7

Page M, Mander R. Intrapartum uncertainty: A feature of normal birth, as experienced by midwives in Scotland. Midwifery. 2014; 30:(1)28-35 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.01.012

Perriman N, Davis DL, Ferguson S. What women value in the midwifery continuity of care model: A systematic review with meta-synthesis. Midwifery. 2018; 62:220-9 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2018.04.011

Peters LL, Thornton C, De Jonge A. The effect of medical and operative birth interventions on child health outcomes in the first 28 days and up to 5 years of age: A linked data population-based cohort study. Birth. 2018; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12348

Rayment-Jones H, Murrells T, Sandall J. An investigation of the relationship between the caseload model of midwifery for socially disadvantaged women and childbirth outcomes using routine data – A retrospective, observational study. Midwifery. 2015; 31:(4)409-17 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2015.01.003

Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D. Midwifeled continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 4 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004667.pub5

Tickle N, Sidebotham M, Fenwick J, Gamble J. Women’s experiences of having a Bachelor of Midwifery student provide continuity of care. Women Birth. 2016; 9:(3)245-51 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2015.11.002

Tracy SK, Hartz DL, Tracy MB Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@ NGO, a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013; 382:(9906)1723-32 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61406-3

Tracy SK, Welsh A, Hall B Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14:(1) https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-46

Tribe RM, Taylor PD, Kelly NM, Rees D, Sandall J, Kennedy HP. Parturition and the perinatal period: can mode of delivery impact on the future health of the neonate?. J Physiol. 2018; https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1113/jp275429

Weeks A, Bewley S. Improbable, but plausible, research study: a randomised controlled trial of premature cord clamping vs. neonatal venesection to achieve routine prophylactic neonatal red cell reduction. J R Soc Med. 2018; 111:(8)270-5 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076818781406

Wong N, Browne J, Ferguson S, Taylor J, Davis D. Getting the first birth right: A retrospective study of outcomes for low-risk primiparous women receiving standard care versus midwifery model of care in the same tertiary hospital. Women Birth. 2015; 28:(4)279-84 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2015.06.005

Can continuity bring birth back to women and normality back to midwives?

02 October 2018
Clinical Practice
02 October 2018
Volume 26 · Issue 10

Abstract

Continuity of midwifery care, and caseload care in particular, is associated with a vast and varied array of improved outcomes for mothers and their families, including reduced intervention, reduced need for analgesia in labour, reduced preterm birth, and improved satisfaction with the birth experience. Caseload models of care may also increase midwives' satisfaction with their role and, contrary to what is often thought, may result in an improved work-life balance, and reduced burnout when compared to models of standard care. This article discusses how caseload midwifery might result in both women and midwives becoming more empowered and autonomous, and may facilitate a redirection of midwifery philosophy back to promoting and protecting normal birth.

There has been much research in recent years into midwifery-led models of maternity care, and this has produced considerable evidence that it can significantly improve outcomes for mothers and their babies. Continuity of care has been shown to reduce obstetric intervention, which interferes with physiological birth; reduce women's need for pain relief by improving her confidence and ability to deal with normal labour pain; and through both of these factors has been shown to improve outcomes, reduce physical and psychological morbidity, and improve satisfaction with birth (McLachlan et al, 2015; Rayment-Jones et al, 2015; Wong et al, 2015; Sandall et al, 2016; Homer et al, 2017) (Figure 1). In addition, despite concerns around increasing hours and reduced work-life balance, continuity of care models can provide midwives with a sense of fulfilment with their role, and greater autonomy and flexibility, thereby providing a better work-life balance, and protecting against psychological stress and burnout (Dahlen and Caplice, 2014; Dawson et al, 2018; Fenwick et al, 2018).

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Midwifery and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for midwives. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to our clinical or professional articles

  • New content and clinical newsletter updates each month

Register
Or continue by

Signing in with your registered email address

Caseload midwifery
Physiological birth
Continuity
Normal birth
Intervention