29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Onsite midwife-led birth units (OMBUs) for care around the time of childbirth: a systematic review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          To ensure timely access to comprehensive emergency obstetric care in low- and middle-income countries, a number of interventions have been employed. This systematic review assesses the effects of onsite midwife-led birth units (OMBUs) embedded within hospitals which provide comprehensive emergency obstetric and newborn care.

          Methods

          Both interventional and observational studies that compared OMBUs with standard medical-led obstetric care were eligible for inclusion. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation and Social Sciences Citation Index, Global Health Library and one Chinese database were searched. Meta-analysis was conducted to synthesise data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Findings of observational studies were summarised by forest plots with brief narratives.

          Results

          Three RCTs, one controlled before-and-after study and six cohort studies were included. There were no or very few maternal and perinatal deaths in either OMBUs or standard obstetric units, with no significant differences between the two. Women giving birth in OMBUs were less likely to use epidural analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.82; three trials, n=2431). The UK national cohort study and two other cohorts in China and Nepal found less oxytocin augmentation, more spontaneous vaginal deliveries, fewer caesarean sections and fewer episiotomies performed in OMBUs than in standard obstetric units. These differences were not statistically significant in RCTs and the remaining cohorts. One study investigated satisfaction with midwife-led birth care among women and midwives, with positive findings in both groups favouring OMBUs. In addition, two studies found that the total cost of birth was lower in OMBUs than in standard obstetric units.

          Conclusions

          OMBUs could be an alternative model for providing safe and cost-effective childbirth care, which may be particularly important in low- and middle-income countries to meet the growing demand for facility-based birth for low-risk women and improve efficiency of health systems.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Why give birth in health facility? Users’ and providers’ accounts of poor quality of birth care in Tanzania

          Background In Tanzania, half of all pregnant women access a health facility for delivery. The proportion receiving skilled care at birth is even lower. In order to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity, the government has set out to increase health facility deliveries by skilled care. The aim of this study was to describe the weaknesses in the provision of acceptable and adequate quality care through the accounts of women who have suffered obstetric fistula, nurse-midwives at both BEmOC and CEmOC health facilities and local community members. Methods Semi-structured interviews involving 16 women affected by obstetric fistula and five nurse-midwives at maternity wards at both BEmOC and CEmOC health facilities, and Focus Group Discussions with husbands and community members were conducted between October 2008 and February 2010 at Comprehensive Community Based Rehabilitation in Tanzania and Temeke hospitals in Dar es Salaam, and Mpwapwa district in Dodoma region. Results Health care users and health providers experienced poor quality caring and working environments in the health facilities. Women in labour lacked support, experienced neglect, as well as physical and verbal abuse. Nurse-midwives lacked supportive supervision, supplies and also seemed to lack motivation. Conclusions There was a consensus among women who have suffered serious birth injuries and nurse midwives staffing both BEmOC and CEmOC maternity wards that the quality of care offered to women in birth was inadequate. While the birth accounts of women pointed to failure of care, the nurses described a situation of disempowerment. The bad birth care experiences of women undermine the reputation of the health care system, lower community expectations of facility birth, and sustain high rates of home deliveries. The only way to increase the rate of skilled attendance at birth in the current Tanzanian context is to make facility birth a safer alternative than home birth. The findings from this study indicate that there is a long way to go.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Bypassing primary care clinics for childbirth: a cross-sectional study in the Pwani region, United Republic of Tanzania

            Objective To measure the extent, determinants and results of bypassing local primary care clinics for childbirth among women in rural parts of the United Republic of Tanzania. Methods Women were selected in 2012 to complete a structured interview from a full census of all 30 076 households in clinic catchment areas in Pwani region. Eligibility was limited to those who had delivered between 6 weeks and 1 year before the interview, were at least 15 years old and lived within the catchment areas. Demographic and delivery care information and opinions on the quality of obstetric care were collected through interviews. Clinic characteristics were collected from staff via questionnaires. Determinants of bypassing (i.e. delivery of the youngest child at a health centre or hospital without provider referral) were analysed using multivariate logistic regression. Bypasser and non-bypasser birth experiences were compared in bivariate analyses. Findings Of 3019 eligible women interviewed (93% response rate), 71.0% (2144) delivered in a health facility; 41.8% (794) were bypassers. Bypassing likelihood increased with primiparity (odds ratio, OR: 2.5; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.9–3.3) and perceived poor quality at clinics (OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0–1.7) and decreased if clinics recently underwent renovations (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18–0.84) and/or performed ≥ 4 obstetric signal functions (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.08–0.41). Bypassers reported better quality of care on six of seven quality of care measures. Conclusion Many pregnant women, especially first-time mothers, choose to bypass local primary care clinics for childbirth. Perceived poor quality of care at clinics was an important reason for bypassing. Primary care is failing to meet the obstetric needs of many women in this rural, low-income setting.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Maternity waiting facilities for improving maternal and neonatal outcome in low-resource countries.

              A maternity waiting home (MWH) is a facility within easy reach of a hospital or health centre which provides emergency obstetric care (EmOC). Women may stay in the MWH at the end of their pregnancy and await labour. Once labour starts, women move to the health facility so that labour and giving birth can be assisted by a skilled birth attendant. The aim of the MWH is to improve accessibility to skilled care and thus reduce morbidity and mortality for mother and neonate should complications arise. Some studies report a favourable effect on the outcomes for women and their newborns. Others show that utilisation is low and barriers exist. However, these data are limited in their reliability.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Glob Health
                BMJ Glob Health
                bmjgh
                bmjgh
                BMJ Global Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2059-7908
                August 2016
                2 September 2016
                : 1
                : 2
                : e000096
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research , Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization , Geneva, Switzerland
                [2 ]Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, School of Women's and Infants’ Health, University of Western Australia , Crawley, Australia
                [3 ]King Edward Memorial Hospital , Subiaco, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
                [4 ]Effective Care Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand , Johannesburg, South Africa
                [5 ]Walter Sisulu University and Eastern Cape Department of Health, Frere Maternity Hospital , Johannesburg, South Africa
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Qian Long; longq@ 123456who.int
                Article
                bmjgh-2016-000096
                10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000096
                5321346
                28588944
                28286172-0c9a-4997-94a4-3aa11609e7f7
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 23 May 2016
                : 1 July 2016
                : 4 July 2016
                Categories
                Research
                1506

                Comments

                Comment on this article