↓ Skip to main content

The relationship between midwife-led group-based versus conventional antenatal care and mode of birth: a matched cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The relationship between midwife-led group-based versus conventional antenatal care and mode of birth: a matched cohort study
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-1216-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren Kearney, Mary Kynn, Alison Craswell, Rachel Reed

Abstract

Midwife facilitated, group models of antenatal care have emerged as an alternative to conventional care both within Australia and internationally. Group antenatal care can be offered in a number of different ways, however usually constitutes a series of sessions co-ordinated by a midwife combining physical assessment, antenatal education and peer support in a group setting. Midwife-led group antenatal care is viewed positively by expectant mothers, with no associated adverse outcomes identified in the published literature for women or their babies when compared with conventional care. Evidence of an improvement in outcomes is limited. The aim of this study was to compare mode of birth (any vaginal birth with caesarean birth) between pregnant women accessing midwife-led group antenatal care and conventional individual antenatal care, in Queensland, Australia. This was a retrospective matched cohort study, set within a collaborative antenatal clinic between the local university and regional public health service in Queensland, Australia. Midwife-led group antenatal care (n = 110) participants were compared with controls enrolled in conventional antenatal care (n = 330). Groups were matched by parity, maternal age and gestation to form comparable groups, selecting a homogeneous sample with respect to confounding variables likely to affect outcomes. There was no evidence that group care resulted in a greater number of caesarean births. The largest increase in the odds of caesarean birth was associated with a previous caesarean birth (p < 0.001), no previous birth (compared with previous vaginal birth) (p < 0.003), and conventional antenatal care (p < 0.073). The secondary outcomes (breastfeeding and infant birth weight) which were examined between the matched cohorts were comparable between groups. There is no evidence arising from this study that there was a significant difference in mode of birth (caesarean or vaginal) between group and conventional care. Group care was associated with a lower risk of caesarean birth after controlling for previous births, with the highest chance for a vaginal birth being a woman who has had a previous vaginal birth and was in group care. Conversely, the highest risk of caesarean birth was for women who have had a previous caesarean birth and conventional care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 103 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 22%
Student > Master 15 14%
Researcher 7 7%
Lecturer 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 32 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 21%
Social Sciences 10 10%
Psychology 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 29 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2017.
All research outputs
#4,964,607
of 24,827,122 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,352
of 4,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,882
of 427,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#32
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,827,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.