Labor outcomes in caseload midwifery compared with standard midwifery care: A cohort study

Background

Research has shown caseload midwifery to increase the chance of vaginal birth, but this may not be the case in settings with high vaginal birth rates in standard care. This study investigated the association between caseload midwifery and birth mode, labor interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes at a large obstetric unit in Denmark.

Methods

Cohort study including medical records on live, singleton births fr om June 2018 until February 2022. Exposure was caseload midwifery care compared with standard midwifery care. The primary outcome was birth mode, and secondary outcomes were other outcomes of labor. Adjusted risk ratios (aRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated by log-binomial regression.

Results

Among 16,110 pregnancies, 3162 pregnancies (19.6%) received caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwifery was associated with fewer planned cesareans (aRR 0.63 [95% CI 0.54–0.74]) and emergency cesareans (aRR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75–0.95]). No differences in labor induction, use of epidural analgesia, oxytocin augmentation, or anal sphincter tears were observed. Caseload midwifery performed more amniotomies (aRR 1.14 [95% CI 1.02–1.27]) and tended to perform more episiotomies (aRR 1.19 [95% CI 0.96–1.48]). Postpartum hemorrhage (aRR 0.90 [95% CI 0.82–0.99]) and low Apgar score were less likely (aRR 0.54 [95% CI 0.37–0.77]), and early discharge more likely (aRR 1.22 [95% CI 1.17–1.28]) in caseload midwifery.

Conclusion

In caseload midwifery care, a higher vaginal birth rate was observed with no increase in adverse outcomes, mainly due to a lower likelihood of planned cesarean. Also, fewer children were born with low Apgar scores.