Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAllen, Jyai
dc.contributor.authorKildea, Sue
dc.contributor.authorTracy, Mark B
dc.contributor.authorHartz, Donna L
dc.contributor.authorWelsh, Alec W
dc.contributor.authorTracy, Sally K
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-09T22:38:08Z
dc.date.available2019-09-09T22:38:08Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn0730-7659
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/birt.12436
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/387112
dc.description.abstractBackground: The measurement and interpretation of patient experience is a distinct dimension of health care quality. The Midwives @ New Group practice Options (M@NGO) randomized control trial of caseload midwifery compared with standard care among women regardless of risk reported both clinical and cost benefits. This study reports participants’ perceptions of the quality of antenatal care within caseload midwifery, compared with standard care for women of any risk within that trial. Methods: A trial conducted at two Australian tertiary hospitals randomly assigned participants (1:1) to caseload midwifery or standard care regardless of risk. Women were sent an 89‐question survey at 6 weeks postpartum that included 12 questions relating to pregnancy care. Ten survey questions (including 7‐point Likert scales) were analyzed by intention to treat and illustrated by participant quotes from two free‐text open‐response items. Results: From the 1748 women recruited to the trial, 58% (n = 1017) completed the 6‐week survey. Of those allocated to caseload midwifery, 66% (n = 573) responded, compared with 51% (n = 444) of those allocated to standard care. The survey found women allocated to caseload midwifery perceived a higher level of quality care across every antenatal measure. Notably, those women with identified risk factors reported higher levels of emotional support (aOR 2.52 [95% CI 1.87‐3.39]), quality care (2.94 [2.28‐3.79]), and feeling actively involved in decision‐making (3.21 [2.35‐4.37]). Conclusions: Results from the study show that in addition to the benefits to clinical care and cost demonstrated in the M@NGO trial, caseload midwifery outperforms standard care in perceived quality of pregnancy care regardless of risk.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWiley
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom439
dc.relation.ispartofpageto449
dc.relation.ispartofissue3
dc.relation.ispartofjournalBirth
dc.relation.ispartofvolume46
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiomedical and clinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode32
dc.subject.keywordsantenatal care
dc.subject.keywordsmidwifery
dc.subject.keywordsrandomized controlled trial
dc.subject.keywordssurvey
dc.titleThe impact of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care, on women's perceptions of antenatal care quality: Survey results from the M@NGO randomized controlled trial for women of any risk
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationAllen, J; Kildea, S; Tracy, MB; Hartz, DL; Welsh, AW; Tracy, SK, The impact of caseload midwifery, compared with standard care, on women's perceptions of antenatal care quality: Survey results from the M@NGO randomized controlled trial for women of any risk, Birth, 2019, 46 (3), pp. 439-449
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-05-07
dc.date.updated2019-09-09T22:35:27Z
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorAllen, Jyai D.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record