Author:
Niles P. Mimi,Baumont Monique,Malhotra Nisha,Stoll Kathrin,Strauss Nan,Lyndon Audrey,Vedam Saraswathi
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Analyses of factors that determine quality of perinatal care consistently rely on clinical markers, while failing to assess experiential outcomes. Understanding how model of care and birth setting influence experiences of respect, autonomy, and decision making, is essential for comprehensive assessment of quality.
Methods
We examined responses (n = 1771) to an online cross-sectional national survey capturing experiences of perinatal care in the United States. We used validated patient-oriented measures and scales to assess four domains of experience: (1) decision-making, (2) respect, (3) mistreatment, and (4) time spent during visits. We categorized the provider type and birth setting into three groups: midwife at community birth, midwife at hospital-birth, and physician at hospital-birth. For each group, we used multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics, to estimate the odds of experiential outcomes in all the four domains.
Results
Compared to those cared for by physicians in hospitals, individuals cared for by midwives in community settings had more than five times the odds of experiencing higher autonomy (aOR: 5.22, 95% CI: 3.65–7.45), higher respect (aOR: 5.39, 95% CI: 3.72–7.82) and lower odds of mistreatment (aOR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10–0.26). We found significant differences across birth settings: participants cared for by midwives in the community settings had significantly better experiential outcomes than those in the hospital settings: high- autonomy (aOR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.66–4.27), respect (aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 2.81–6.14), mistreatment (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11–0.34), time spent (aOR: 8.06, 95% CI: 4.26–15.28).
Conclusion
Participants reported better experiential outcomes when cared for by midwives than by physicians. And for those receiving midwifery care, the quality of experiential outcomes was significantly higher in community settings than in hospital settings. Care settings matter and structures of hospital-based care may impair implementation of the person-centered midwifery care model.
Funder
W.K Kellogg Foundation
New Hampshire Charitable Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Obstetrics and Gynecology,Reproductive Medicine
Reference68 articles.
1. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (NASEM). Birth Settings in America: Outcomes, Quality, Access, and Choice. Washington, DC; 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25636.
2. Cheyney M, Bovbjerg ML, Leeman L, Vedam S. Community versus out-of-hospital birth: what’s in a name? J Midwifery Womens Health. 2019;64(1):9–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12947.
3. Fullerton JT, et al. The midwifery workforce: ACNM 2012 and AMCB 2013 core data. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015;60(6):751–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12405.
4. Macdorman M, Declercq E. Trends and state variations in out-of-hospital births in the United States, 2004–2017. Birth. 2019;46(2):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12411.
5. North American Registry of Midwives. NARM CPM Brochure. 1996. https://narm.org/about/advocacy/narm-cpm-brochure/text/#:~:text=The%20Midwives%20Model%20of%20Care%E2%84%A2,-is%20based%20on&text=providing%20the%20mother%20with%20individualized,women%20who%20require%20obstetrical%20attention.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献