Does Team Midwife Care Increase Satisfaction with Antenatal, Intrapartum, and Postpartum Care? A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although policymakers have suggested that improving continuity of midwifery can increase women's satisfaction with care in childbirth, evidence based on randomized controlled trials is lacking. New models of care, such as birth centers and team midwife care, try to increase the continuity of care and caregiver. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a new team midwife care program in the standard clinic and hospital environment on satisfaction with antenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum care in low-risk women in early pregnancy. METHODS: Women at Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, were randomly allocated to team midwife care (n = 495) or standard care (n = 505) at booking in early pregnancy. Doctors attended most women in standard care, and continuity of the caregiver was lacking. Satisfaction was measured by means of a postal questionnaire 2 months after the birth. RESULTS: Team midwife care was associated with increased satisfaction, and the differences between the groups were most noticeable for antenatal care, less noticeable for intrapartum care, and least noticeable for postpartum care. The study found no differences between team midwife care and standard care in medical interventions or in women's emotional well-being 2 months after the birth. CONCLUSION: Conclusions about which components of team midwife care were most important to increased satisfaction with antenatal care were difficult to draw, but data suggest that satisfaction with intrapartum care was related to continuity of the caregiver.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".