Comparison of midwife-led and obstetrician-led care in Lithuania: A retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Objective: To compare midwife-led and obstetrician-led care and their relation to caesarean section rates and obstetric and neonatal outcomes in low-risk births.

Design: Hospital registry based retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Tertiary-care women's hospital in Kaunas, Lithuania.

Participants: A total of 1384 and 1283 low-risk delivering women in 2012 and 2014, respectively.

Methods: The women choose either a midwife as their lead carer (midwife-led group), or an obstetrician-gynaecologist (obstetrician-led group).

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was caesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included instrumental vaginal births, amniotomy, augmentation of labour, epidural analgesia, episiotomy, perineal trauma, labour duration, birthweight and Apgar score < 7 at 5 min.

Results: The proportion of caesarean births was 4.4% in the midwife-led and 10.7% in the obstetrician-led group (p < 0.001) in 2012, and 5.2% and 11.8% (p < 0.001) in 2014, respectively. Younger maternal age (≤34 years) and midwife-led care was associated with a significantly decreased odds for caesarean section and nulliparity with a significantly increased odds for caesarean birth. Women in the midwife-led group had fewer amniotomies and labour augmentations compared with the obstetrician-led group. Episiotomy, perineal trauma, duration of labour and neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion: Midwife-led care for women with low-risk birth reduced the caesarean section and several medical interventions with no apparent increase in immediate adverse neonatal outcomes compared with obstetrician-led care.

Implications for practice: Midwife-led care for low-risk women should be encouraged in countries with health care system where obstetrician-led care births dominates.

Keywords: Caesarean section; Low-risk birth; Midwife-led care; Obstetric outcome.