Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care

Background: Implementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care.

Methods: A systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models’ characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria.

Results: From 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0–32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported.

Conclusions: The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised.

Associations between maternal characteristics and pregnancy-related stress among low-risk mothers: An observational cross-sectional study

Background: Pregnancy is viewed as a major life event and, while the majority of healthy, low-risk women adapt well to pregnancy, there are those whose levels of stress are heightened by the experience.

Objectives: To determine the level of pregnancy-related stress experienced by a group of healthy, low-risk pregnant women and to relate the level of stress with a number of maternal characteristics.

Design: An observational cross-sectional study.

Setting: A large, urban maternity centre in Northern Ireland.

Participants: Of the 306 pregnant women who were invited to participate, 278 provided informed consent and were administered one self-complete questionnaire. Due to the withdrawal criteria, 15 questionnaires were removed from the analysis, resulting in a final sample of 263 healthy, low-risk pregnant women.

Methods: Levels of stress were measured using a self-report measure designed to assess specific worries and concerns relating to pregnancy. Maternal characteristics collected included age, marital status, social status, parity, obstetric history, perceived health status and 'wantedness' for the pregnancy. Regression analysis was undertaken using an ordinary linear regression model.

Results: The mean prenatal distress score in the sample was 15.1 (SD = 7.4; range 0-46). The regression model showed that women who had had previous pregnancies, with or without complications, had significantly lower mean prenatal distress scores than primiparous women (p < 0.01). Women reporting poorer physical health had higher mean prenatal distress scores than those who reported at least average health, while women aged 16-20 experienced a mean increase in the reported prenatal distress score (p < 0.05) in comparison to the reference group of 36 years and over.

Conclusions: This study brings to light the prevalence of pregnancy-related stress within a sample representative of healthy, low-risk women. Current antenatal care is ill-equipped to identify women suffering from high levels of stress; yet a growing body of research evidence links stress with adverse pregnancy outcomes. This study emphasises that healthy, low-risk women experience a range of pregnancy-related stress and identification of stress levels, either through the use of a simple stress measurement tool or through the associated factors identified within this research study, provides valuable data on maternal well-being. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

From pregnancy to palliative care: advancing professional midwifery practice?

Historically midwives may have not considered palliative care as a part of their professional role. Enhanced technologies and antenatal screening have broadened the boundaries of care. However do midwives truly embrace the philosophy of palliative care into their practice? This paper presents the discussion round a case study that demonstrates the evolving area of advanced practice: perinatal palliative care. What we highlight is that midwives in fact have an important collaborative role to play in ensuring that palliative care for the baby and family starts as soon as a life-limiting condition is recognised, thus ensuring best care and support are provided for those parents and families for whom pregnancy sadly leads to palliative care. Five key lessons for practice are outlined.