2013
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61406-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
192
0
4

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 243 publications
(204 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
6
192
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The study methods and primary outcomes are described in detail elsewhere (Tracy et al, 2013). Briefly, we conducted a multi-site unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial: Midwives @ New Group practice Options (M@NGO: Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246) at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia.…”
Section: Design / Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The study methods and primary outcomes are described in detail elsewhere (Tracy et al, 2013). Briefly, we conducted a multi-site unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial: Midwives @ New Group practice Options (M@NGO: Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246) at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia.…”
Section: Design / Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For respondents in the caseload group, control was commonly related to avoiding medical intervention and having a normal birth. Indeed, women in the caseload group had a higher rate of spontaneous onset of labour (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.09-1.61, p=0.005) which was related to a lower rate of both induction of labour (24% vs 28%, p=0.05) and planned caesarean section (8% vs 11%, p=0.05) (Tracy et al, 2013). For women experiencing complexity, continuity of midwife carer is particularly important in terms of developing trust, navigating the system and optimising support .…”
Section: Capacitymentioning
confidence: 98%
See 3 more Smart Citations