Experiences of maternity care among women at increased risk of preterm birth receiving midwifery continuity of care compared to women receiving standard care: Results from the POPPIE pilot trial.
Adult
Continuity of Patient Care
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Maternal Health Services
/ trends
Maternal-Child Nursing
/ methods
Midwifery
/ methods
Obstetrics
/ methods
Patient Satisfaction
/ statistics & numerical data
Pilot Projects
Postnatal Care
/ methods
Pregnancy
Pregnant Women
Premature Birth
/ prevention & control
Prenatal Care
/ methods
Quality of Life
Risk Factors
Surveys and Questionnaires
United Kingdom
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
06
10
2020
accepted:
01
03
2021
entrez:
21
4
2021
pubmed:
22
4
2021
medline:
23
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Midwifery continuity of care models for women at low and mixed risk of complications have been shown to improve women's experiences of care. However, there is limited research on care experiences among women at increased risk of preterm birth. We aimed to explore the experiences of care among women with risk factors for preterm birth participating in a pilot trial (POPPIE) of a midwifery continuity of care model which included a specialist obstetric clinic. A total of 334 pregnant women identified at increased risk of preterm birth were randomly allocated to either midwifery continuity of care (POPPIE group) or standard maternity care. Women in both groups were followed up at six-to-eight weeks postpartum and were invited to complete a postnatal survey either online or by post. An equal status exploratory sequential mixed method design was chosen to collect and analyse the quantitative postnatal survey data and qualitative interviews data. The postnatal survey included measures of social support, trust, perceptions of safety, quality of care, control during childbirth, bonding and quality of life. Categorical data were analysed with chi-squared tests and continuous data were analysed with t-tests and/or Mann-Whitney U test to measure differences in measures scores among groups. The qualitative interview data were subjected to a thematic framework analysis. Data triangulation brought quantitative and qualitative data together at the interpretation stage. A total of 166 women completed the survey and 30 women were interviewed (90 and 16 in POPPIE group; 76 and 14 in standard group). We found survey respondents in the POPPIE group, compared to respondents in the standard group, were significantly more likely to report greater trust in midwives (Mann-Whitney U, p<0.0001), greater perceptions of safety during the antenatal care (t-test, p = 0.0138), have a particular midwife to contact when they needed during their pregnancy (t-test, p<0.0001) and the postnatal period (chi-squared, p<0.0001). They reported increased involvement in decisions regarding antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care (t-test, p = 0.002; p = 0.008; p = 0.006 respectively); and greater postnatal support and advice about: feeding the baby (chi-squared, p<0.0001), handling, settling and looking after the baby (chi-squared, p<0.0001), baby's health and progress (chi-squared, p = 0.039), their own health and recovery (chi-squared, p = 0.006) and who to contact about any emotional changes (chi-squared, p = 0.005). There were no significant differences between groups in the reporting of perceptions of safety during birth and the postnatal period, concerns raised during labour and birth taken seriously, being left alone during childbirth at a time of worries, control during labour, bonding, social support, and physical and mental health related quality of life after birth. Results from qualitative interviews provided insight and depth into many of these findings, with women in the POPPIE group reporting more positive experiences of bonding towards their babies and more positive physical health postnatally. Compared with standard maternity care, women at increased risk of PTB who received midwifery continuity of care were more likely to report increased perceptions of trust, safety and quality of care. ISRCTN (Number: 37733900); UK CRN (ID: 31951).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Midwifery continuity of care models for women at low and mixed risk of complications have been shown to improve women's experiences of care. However, there is limited research on care experiences among women at increased risk of preterm birth. We aimed to explore the experiences of care among women with risk factors for preterm birth participating in a pilot trial (POPPIE) of a midwifery continuity of care model which included a specialist obstetric clinic.
METHODS
A total of 334 pregnant women identified at increased risk of preterm birth were randomly allocated to either midwifery continuity of care (POPPIE group) or standard maternity care. Women in both groups were followed up at six-to-eight weeks postpartum and were invited to complete a postnatal survey either online or by post. An equal status exploratory sequential mixed method design was chosen to collect and analyse the quantitative postnatal survey data and qualitative interviews data. The postnatal survey included measures of social support, trust, perceptions of safety, quality of care, control during childbirth, bonding and quality of life. Categorical data were analysed with chi-squared tests and continuous data were analysed with t-tests and/or Mann-Whitney U test to measure differences in measures scores among groups. The qualitative interview data were subjected to a thematic framework analysis. Data triangulation brought quantitative and qualitative data together at the interpretation stage.
FINDINGS
A total of 166 women completed the survey and 30 women were interviewed (90 and 16 in POPPIE group; 76 and 14 in standard group). We found survey respondents in the POPPIE group, compared to respondents in the standard group, were significantly more likely to report greater trust in midwives (Mann-Whitney U, p<0.0001), greater perceptions of safety during the antenatal care (t-test, p = 0.0138), have a particular midwife to contact when they needed during their pregnancy (t-test, p<0.0001) and the postnatal period (chi-squared, p<0.0001). They reported increased involvement in decisions regarding antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care (t-test, p = 0.002; p = 0.008; p = 0.006 respectively); and greater postnatal support and advice about: feeding the baby (chi-squared, p<0.0001), handling, settling and looking after the baby (chi-squared, p<0.0001), baby's health and progress (chi-squared, p = 0.039), their own health and recovery (chi-squared, p = 0.006) and who to contact about any emotional changes (chi-squared, p = 0.005). There were no significant differences between groups in the reporting of perceptions of safety during birth and the postnatal period, concerns raised during labour and birth taken seriously, being left alone during childbirth at a time of worries, control during labour, bonding, social support, and physical and mental health related quality of life after birth. Results from qualitative interviews provided insight and depth into many of these findings, with women in the POPPIE group reporting more positive experiences of bonding towards their babies and more positive physical health postnatally.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with standard maternity care, women at increased risk of PTB who received midwifery continuity of care were more likely to report increased perceptions of trust, safety and quality of care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ISRCTN (Number: 37733900); UK CRN (ID: 31951).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33882059
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248588
pii: PONE-D-20-29435
pmc: PMC8059847
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN37733900']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0248588Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CFT, SAS, KC, LB, JS and PTS declare no competing interest. AHS reports grants from Hologic outside the submitted work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Ethn Health. 2017 Feb;22(1):65-82
pubmed: 27174778
BJOG. 2016 Feb;123(3):465-74
pubmed: 26498455
Qual Life Res. 2009 Sep;18(7):873-80
pubmed: 19543809
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Jan;7(1):e37-e46
pubmed: 30389451
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 14;11:CD012505
pubmed: 30480756
Midwifery. 2018 Jul;62:220-229
pubmed: 29723790
Lancet. 2017 Dec 17;388(10063):3027-3035
pubmed: 27839855
Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017;69(Suppl 2):107-131
pubmed: 28989188
Int J Nurs Stud. 2011 Mar;48(3):369-83
pubmed: 21084086
Soc Sci Med. 1997 Nov;45(9):1325-36
pubmed: 9351152
Res Nurs Health. 1987 Oct;10(5):301-10
pubmed: 3671777
Birth. 2003 Mar;30(1):1-10
pubmed: 12581034
Soc Sci Med. 2009 Oct;69(8):1228-35
pubmed: 19699570
Midwifery. 2002 Dec;18(4):260-7
pubmed: 12473441
Lancet. 2008 Jan 5;371(9606):75-84
pubmed: 18177778
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016 Feb 03;16:28
pubmed: 26841782
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Trials. 2019 May 14;20(1):271
pubmed: 31088505
PLoS Med. 2020 Oct 6;17(10):e1003350
pubmed: 33022010
Bone Joint J. 2019 Jul;101-B(7):832-837
pubmed: 31256677
Arch Womens Ment Health. 2005 May;8(1):45-51
pubmed: 15868385
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008 Apr;13(2):92-8
pubmed: 18416914
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1994 Aug;73(7):547-54
pubmed: 8079605
Midwifery. 2018 Sep;64:85-92
pubmed: 29990628
J Adv Nurs. 2010 Mar;66(3):683-9
pubmed: 20423403
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 28;4:CD004667
pubmed: 27121907
Midwifery. 2016 Oct;41:30-38
pubmed: 27498186
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015 Sep 7;1:32
pubmed: 27965810
Midwifery. 1989 Mar;5(1):11-6
pubmed: 2927328
Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2015 Aug 14;2:2333393615597674
pubmed: 28462313