Cited by 521Maternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareGlobal Maternal and Child Health

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women

Sandall, Jane, Soltani, Hora, Gates, Simon, Shennan, Andrew, Devane, Declan·2015·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Background Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care. Objectives To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Main results We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e., regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary o…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd004667.pub4

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several studies conducted in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries have shown high satisfaction levels in women who were monitored in this way.

    “Several studies conducted in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries have shown high satisfaction levels in women who were monitored in this way. 4,7”
  • The planning, coordination and delivery of women's health care by a midwife through pregnancy, intrapartum and postpartum care according to the woman-centred care model has a favourable impact on obstetric and neonatal outcomes compared to other models of care.

    “The planning, coordination and delivery of women ' s health care by a midwife through pregnancy, intrapartum and postpartum care according to the woman-centred care model has a favourable impact on obstetric and neonatal outcomes compared to other models of care. 4”
  • These data underscore the beneficial effects of perinatal care provided by the midwife on satisfaction in various cultural and linguistic contexts.

    “These data underscore the bene fi cial effects of perinatal care provided by the midwife on satisfaction in various cultural and linguistic contexts. 4,15”
  • In terms of perinatal morbidity, no significant difference was recorded between the two types of care.

    “In terms of perinatal morbidity, no signi fi cant difference was recorded between the two types of care, which matches the results of past studies 4 and con fi rms the safety of CSC follow-up.”
  • The CSC follow-up is safe.

    “In terms of perinatal morbidity, no signi fi cant difference was recorded between the two types of care, which matches the results of past studies 4 and con fi rms the safety of CSC follow-up.”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sandall, J., Soltani, H., Gates, S., Shennan, A., & Devane, D.
Affiliations
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
  • Sheffield Hallam University (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2015-09-15
Issue
9
Pages
CD004667-CD004667
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4232203714
Cited by
514
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 1
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0514-10145, 10/4001/02)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
Keywords
models of care, childbirth, midwifery, regional analgesia, epidural analgesia, caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth, preterm birth, fetal death, neonatal death, perineal trauma, normal delivery, maternal morbidity, psychosocial outcomes, maternal satisfaction
MeSH terms
Amnion, Cesarean Section, Continuity of Patient Care, Episiotomy, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Midwifery, Postnatal Care, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Analgesia, Obstetrical, Patient Satisfaction, Models, Organizational, Perinatal Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review