• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

医院层面助产士接生比例与产科手术利用情况之间的关系。

Relationship Between Hospital-Level Percentage of Midwife-Attended Births and Obstetric Procedure Utilization.

作者信息

Attanasio Laura, Kozhimannil Katy B

出版信息

J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018 Jan;63(1):14-22. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12702. Epub 2017 Nov 16.

DOI:10.1111/jmwh.12702
PMID:29144586
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Research has shown good outcomes among individual low-risk women who receive perinatal care from midwives, yet little is known about how hospital-level variation in midwifery care relates to procedure use and maternal health. This study aimed to document the association between the hospital-level proportion of midwife-attended births and obstetric procedure utilization.

METHODS

This analysis used 2 data sources: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database data for New York in 2014, and New York State Department of Health data on the percentage of midwife-attended births at hospitals in the state in 2014. Using logistic regression, we estimated the association between the hospital-level percentage of midwife-attended births and 4 outcomes among low-risk women: labor induction, cesarean birth, episiotomy, and severe maternal morbidity.

RESULTS

Hospital-level percentage of midwife-attended births was not associated with reduced odds of labor induction or severe maternal morbidity. Women who gave births at hospitals with more midwife-attended births had lower odds of giving birth by cesarean (eg, adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.82 at a hospital with 15% to 40% of births attended by midwives, compared to no midwife-attended births) and lower odds of episiotomy (eg, aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.74 at a hospital with more than 40% of births attended by midwives, compared to no midwife-attended births).

DISCUSSION

Our results indicate that hospitals with more midwife-attended births have lower utilization of some obstetric procedures among low-risk women; this raises the possibility of improving value in maternity care through greater access to midwifery care.

摘要

引言

研究表明,接受助产士围产期护理的低风险个体女性有良好的结局,但对于助产护理在医院层面的差异如何与手术使用和孕产妇健康相关,人们知之甚少。本研究旨在记录助产士接生比例在医院层面与产科手术利用之间的关联。

方法

本分析使用了两个数据源:2014年纽约医疗成本和利用项目州住院数据库数据,以及纽约州卫生部关于该州医院2014年助产士接生百分比的数据。我们使用逻辑回归估计了医院层面助产士接生百分比与低风险女性的4个结局之间的关联:引产、剖宫产、会阴切开术和严重孕产妇发病率。

结果

医院层面助产士接生百分比与引产几率降低或严重孕产妇发病率无关。在助产士接生比例较高的医院分娩的女性剖宫产几率较低(例如,调整后的优势比[aOR]为0.70;95%置信区间[CI]为0.59 - 0.82,该医院助产士接生比例为15%至40%,与无助产士接生相比),会阴切开术几率也较低(例如,aOR为0.41;95%CI为0.23 - 0.74,该医院助产士接生比例超过40%,与无助产士接生相比)。

讨论

我们的结果表明,助产士接生比例较高的医院,低风险女性的某些产科手术利用率较低;这增加了通过增加助产护理可及性来提高产科护理价值的可能性。

相似文献

1
Relationship Between Hospital-Level Percentage of Midwife-Attended Births and Obstetric Procedure Utilization.医院层面助产士接生比例与产科手术利用情况之间的关系。
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018 Jan;63(1):14-22. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12702. Epub 2017 Nov 16.
2
Outcomes of planned home births versus planned hospital births after regulation of midwifery in British Columbia.不列颠哥伦比亚省助产士管理后计划在家分娩与计划在医院分娩的结局
CMAJ. 2002 Feb 5;166(3):315-23.
3
Comparison of Midwifery and Obstetric Care in Low-Risk Hospital Births.低危医院分娩中助产护理与产科护理的比较。
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Nov;134(5):1056-1065. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003521.
4
Labor and Birth Care Satisfaction Associated With Medical Interventions and Accompaniment During Labor Among Chilean Women.智利女性分娩期间的医疗干预及陪伴与分娩和分娩护理满意度的关联
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2017 Mar;62(2):196-203. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12499. Epub 2016 Aug 20.
5
Perinatal risks of planned home births in the United States.美国计划在家分娩的围产期风险。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):350.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.021. Epub 2014 Oct 15.
6
Birth Outcomes of Women Using a Midwife versus Women Using a Physician for Prenatal Care.产妇使用助产士和使用医师进行产前护理的分娩结果比较。
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2018 Jul;63(4):399-409. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12750. Epub 2018 Jun 26.
7
Labor and birth care by nurse with midwifery skills in Brazil.巴西具备助产技能的护士提供的分娩及产褥期护理。
Reprod Health. 2016 Oct 17;13(Suppl 3):123. doi: 10.1186/s12978-016-0236-7.
8
Maternity Outcomes in Manitoba Women: A Comparison between Midwifery-led Care and Physician-led Care at Birth.曼尼托巴省女性的孕产结局:助产士主导护理与医生主导分娩护理的比较。
Birth. 2016 Jun;43(2):108-15. doi: 10.1111/birt.12225. Epub 2016 Feb 18.
9
Outcomes of planned hospital birth attended by midwives compared with physicians in British Columbia.不列颠哥伦比亚省由助产士接生与由医生接生的计划内医院分娩结局比较。
Birth. 2007 Jun;34(2):140-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2007.00160.x.
10
Midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care for low-risk pregnancies: A cost comparison.导乐式分娩护理与产科医生主导式分娩护理在低危妊娠中的成本比较。
Birth. 2020 Mar;47(1):57-66. doi: 10.1111/birt.12464. Epub 2019 Nov 3.

引用本文的文献

1
The Availability of Midwifery Care in Rural United States Communities.美国农村社区助产护理的可及性。
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2024 Nov-Dec;69(6):929-936. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.13676. Epub 2024 Jul 23.
2
Staff Resources in Public and Private Hospitals and Their Implication for Medical Practice: A French Study of Caesareans.公立和私立医院的人力资源及其对医疗实践的影响:一项关于剖腹产的法国研究。
Healthcare (Basel). 2024 May 14;12(10):1007. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12101007.
3
Maternity care clinician inclusion in Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations.
将产妇保健临床医生纳入医疗补助管理式医疗组织。
PLoS One. 2023 Mar 8;18(3):e0282679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282679. eCollection 2023.
4
Advancing quality and safety of perinatal services in India: opportunities for effective midwifery integration.提高印度围产期服务的质量和安全性:有效整合助产服务的机会。
Health Policy Plan. 2022 Sep 13;37(8):1042-1063. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czac032.
5
American College of Nurse-Midwives Clinical Bulletin Number 18: Induction of Labor.美国护士助产学临床公告第 18 号:引产。
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2022 Jan;67(1):140-149. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.13337.
6
Culture That Facilitates Change: A Mixed Methods Study of Hospitals Engaged in Reducing Cesarean Deliveries.促进变革的文化:参与降低剖宫产率的医院的混合方法研究。
Ann Fam Med. 2021 May-Jun;19(3):249-257. doi: 10.1370/afm.2675.
7
Induction of labor or expectant management? Birth outcomes for nulliparous individuals choosing midwifery care.引产还是期待管理?选择助产士护理的初产妇的分娩结局。
Birth. 2021 Dec;48(4):501-513. doi: 10.1111/birt.12560. Epub 2021 May 28.
8
Challenges in the Triage Care of Low-Risk Laboring Patients: A Comparison of 2 Models of Practice.低危临产患者分诊护理中的挑战:两种实践模式的比较。
J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2021;35(2):123-131. doi: 10.1097/JPN.0000000000000552.
9
A scoping review of severe maternal morbidity: describing risk factors and methodological approaches to inform population-based surveillance.重度孕产妇发病情况的范围综述:描述风险因素及为基于人群的监测提供信息的方法学途径。
Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2021 Jan 6;7(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s40748-020-00123-1.
10
Rural resilience: The role of birth centers in the United States.农村韧性:美国生育中心的作用。
Birth. 2020 Dec;47(4):430-437. doi: 10.1111/birt.12516. Epub 2020 Dec 3.