Hatem Marie, Sandall Jane, Devane Declan, Soltani Hora, Gates Simon
Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Université de Montréal, Faculté de médecine, C.P 6128, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3C 3J7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 8(4):CD004667. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub2.
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 and other models of care.
To compare midwife-led models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2008), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's Trials Register (January 2008), Current Contents (1994 to January 2008), CINAHL (1982 to August 2006), Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, ISI Proceedings, (1990 to 2008), and the WHO Reproductive Health Library, No. 9.
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led or other models of care during pregnancy, and where care is provided during the ante- and intrapartum period in the midwife-led model.
All authors evaluated methodological quality. Two authors independently checked the data extraction.
We included 11 trials (12,276 women). Women who had midwife-led models of care were less likely to experience antenatal hospitalisation, risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.99), the use of regional analgesia (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91), episiotomy (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.88), and instrumental delivery (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.96) and were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.29), spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06), to feel in control during labour and childbirth (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.30), attendance at birth by a known midwife (RR 7.84, 95% CI 4.15 to 14.81) and initiate breastfeeding (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.76). In addition, women who were randomised to receive midwife-led care were less likely to experience fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97), and their babies were more likely to have a shorter length of hospital stay (mean difference -2.00, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.85). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for overall fetal loss/neonatal death (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), or fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All women should be offered midwife-led models of care and women should be encouraged to ask for this option.
在全球范围内,助产士是为孕产妇提供护理的主要人员。然而,缺乏综合信息来确定由助产士主导的护理模式与其他护理模式在发病率、死亡率、有效性及社会心理结局方面是否存在差异。
比较由助产士主导的护理模式与其他针对孕产妇及其婴儿的护理模式。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2008年1月)、Cochrane有效实践与护理组织组试验注册库(2008年1月)、《现刊目次》(1994年至2008年1月)、护理学与健康领域数据库(1982年至2006年8月)、科学引文索引数据库、生物学文摘数据库、ISI会议录(1990年至2008年)以及世界卫生组织生殖健康图书馆第9期。
所有已发表和未发表的试验,其中孕妇在孕期被随机分配至由助产士主导的护理模式或其他护理模式,且在由助产士主导的模式下,在产前和产时均提供护理。
所有作者评估方法学质量。两位作者独立检查数据提取情况。
我们纳入了11项试验(12276名女性)。接受由助产士主导护理模式的女性较少出现产前住院(风险比(RR)0.90,95%置信区间(CI)0.81至0.99)、使用区域镇痛(RR 0.81,95% CI 0.7至0.91)、会阴切开术(RR 0.82,95% CI 0.77至0.88)以及器械助产(RR 0.86,95% CI 0.78至0.9),且更有可能未接受产时镇痛/麻醉(RR 1.16,95% CI 1.05至1.29)、自然阴道分娩(RR 1.04,95% CI 1.02至1.06),在分娩过程中感觉能掌控局面(RR 1.74,95% CI 1.32至2.3),有熟悉的助产士接生(RR 7.84,95% CI 4.15至14.81)并开始母乳喂养(RR 1.35,95% CI 1.03至1.76)。此外,被随机分配接受由助产士主导护理的女性在妊娠24周前发生胎儿丢失的可能性较小(RR 0.79,95% CI 0.65至0.97),其婴儿住院时间更有可能较短(平均差 -2.00,95% CI -2.15至 -1.85)。在总体胎儿丢失/新生儿死亡(RR 0.83,95% CI 0.7至1.00)或至少24周的胎儿丢失/新生儿死亡方面(RR 1.01,95% CI 0.67至1.53),两组之间无统计学显著差异。
应向所有女性提供由助产士主导的护理模式,并鼓励女性选择这一模式。