BackgroundUnderstanding immigrant women’s experiences of maternity care is critical if receiving country care systems are to respond appropriately to increasing global migration. This systematic review aimed to compare what we know about immigrant and non-immigrant women’s experiences of maternity care.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, Health Star, Embase and PsychInfo were searched for the period 1989–2012. First, we retrieved population-based studies of women’s experiences of maternity care (n = 12). For countries with identified population studies, studies focused specifically on immigrant women’s experiences of care were also retrieved (n = 22). For all included studies, we extracted available data on experiences of care and undertook a descriptive comparison.ResultsWhat immigrant and non-immigrant women want from maternity care proved similar: safe, high quality, attentive and individualised care, with adequate information and support. Immigrant women were less positive about their care than non-immigrant women. Communication problems and lack of familiarity with care systems impacted negatively on immigrant women’s experiences, as did perceptions of discrimination and care which was not kind or respectful.ConclusionFew differences were found in what immigrant and non-immigrant women want from maternity care. The challenge for health systems is to address the barriers immigrant women face by improving communication, increasing women’s understanding of care provision and reducing discrimination.

BackgroundContinuity of care by a primary midwife during the antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum periods has been recommended in Australia and many hospitals have introduced a caseload midwifery model of care. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effect of caseload midwifery on women’s satisfaction with care across the maternity continuum.MethodsPregnant women at low risk of complications, booking for care at a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Australia, were recruited to a randomised controlled trial between September 2007 and June 2010. Women were randomised to caseload midwifery or standard care. The caseload model included antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a primary midwife with back-up provided by another known midwife when necessary. Women allocated to standard care received midwife-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care, or community-based general practitioner care. Data for this paper were collected by background questionnaire prior to randomisation and a follow-up questionnaire sent at two months postpartum. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. A secondary analysis explored the effect of intrapartum continuity of carer on overall satisfaction rating.ResultsTwo thousand, three hundred fourteen women were randomised: 1,156 to caseload care and 1,158 to standard care. The response rate to the two month survey was 88 % in the caseload group and 74 % in the standard care group. Compared with standard care, caseload care was associated with higher overall ratings of satisfaction with antenatal care (OR 3.35; 95 % CI 2.79, 4.03), intrapartum care (OR 2.14; 95 % CI 1.78, 2.57), hospital postpartum care (OR 1.56, 95 % CI 1.32, 1.85) and home-based postpartum care (OR 3.19; 95 % CI 2.64, 3.85).ConclusionFor women at low risk of medical complications, caseload midwifery increases women’s satisfaction with antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012607000073404 (registration complete 23rd January 2007).

No abstract

Background Breastfeeding rates are suboptimal internationally, and many infants are not receiving any breast milk at all by six months of age. Few interventions increase breastfeeding duration, particularly where there is relatively high initiation. The effect of proactive peer (mother-to-mother) support has been found to increase breastfeeding in some contexts but not others, but if it is shown to be effective would be a potentially sustainable model in many settings. We aimed to determine whether proactive telephone-based peer support during the postnatal period increases the proportion of infants being breastfed at six months of age. Methods RUBY (Ringing Up about Breastfeeding earlY) was a multicentre, two-arm un-blinded randomised controlled trial conducted in three hospitals in Victoria, Australia. First-time mothers intending to breastfeed were recruited after birth and prior to hospital discharge, and randomly assigned (1:1) to usual care or usual care plus proactive telephone-based breastfeeding support from a trained peer volunteer for up to six months postpartum. A computerised random number program generated block sizes of four or six distributed randomly, with stratification by site. Research midwives were masked to block size, but masking of allocation was not possible. The primary outcome was the proportion of infants receiving any breast milk at six months of age. Analyses were by intention to treat; data were collected and analysed masked to group. The trial is registered with ACTRN, number 12612001024831. Findings Women were recruited between Feb 14, 2013 and Dec 15, 2015 and randomly assigned to peer support ( n = 574) or usual care ( n = 578). Five were not in the primary analysis [5 post-randomisation exclusions]. Infants of women allocated to telephone-based peer support were more likely than those allocated to usual care to be receiving breast milk at six months of age (intervention 75%, usual care 69%; Adj. RR 1·10; 95% CI 1·02, 1·18). There were no adverse events. Interpretation Providing first time mothers with telephone-based support from a peer with at least six months personal breastfeeding experience is an effective intervention for increasing breastfeeding maintenance in settings with high breastfeeding initiation. Funding The , Australia, philanthropic donation and grant.

Objective To determine the effect of primary midwife-led care ('caseload midwifery') on women's experiences of childbirth.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting Tertiary care women's hospital in Melbourne, Australia.Population A total of 2314 low-risk pregnant women.Methods Women randomised to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a primary midwife, with some care provided by a 'back-up' midwife. Women in standard care received midwifery-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care or community-based medical care.Main outcome measures The primary outcome of the study was caesarean section. This paper presents a secondary outcome, women's experience of childbirth. Women's views and experiences were sought using seven-point rating scales via postal questionnaires 2 months after the birth.Results A total of 2314 women were randomised between September 2007 and June 2010; 1156 to caseload and 1158 to standard care. Response rates to the follow-up questionnaire were 88 and 74%, respectively. Women in the caseload group were more positive about their overall birth experience than women in the standard care group (adjusted odds ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.22-1.84). They also felt more in control during labour, were more proud of themselves, less anxious, and more likely to have a positive experience of pain.Conclusions Compared with standard maternity care, caseload midwifery may improve women's experiences of childbirth.Keywords Birth experience, caseload midwifery, continuity of care, midwife-led care, primary midwife care, randomised controlled trial.Tweetable abstract Primary midwife-led care ('caseload midwifery') improves women's experiences of childbirth.