Suppr超能文献

澳大利亚昆士兰州替代模式产妇护理中患者报告的结果和体验的直接比较。

A direct comparison of patient-reported outcomes and experiences in alternative models of maternity care in Queensland, Australia.

机构信息

School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, QLD, Australia.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2022 Jul 12;17(7):e0271105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271105. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

We aimed to directly compare women's pregnancy to postpartum outcomes and experiences across the major maternity models of care offered in Queensland, Australia. We conducted secondary analyses of self-reported data collected in 2012 from a state-wide sample of women who had recently given birth in Queensland (response rate = 30.4%). Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of outcomes and experiences associated with three models (GP Shared Care, Public Midwifery Continuity Care, Private Obstetric Care) compared with Standard Public Care, adjusting for relevant maternal characteristics and clinical covariates. Of 2,802 women, 18.2% received Standard Public Care, 21.7% received GP Shared Care, 12.9% received Public Midwifery Continuity Care, and 47.1% received Private Obstetric Care. There were minimal differences for women in GP Shared Care. Women in Public Midwifery Continuity Care were less likely to have a scheduled caesarean and more likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth, experience freedom of mobility during labour and informed consent processes for inducing labour, vaginal examinations, fetal monitoring and receiving Syntocinon to birth their placenta, and report highest quality interpersonal care. They had fewer vaginal examinations, lower odds of perineal trauma requiring sutures and anxiety after birth, shorter postpartum hospital stays, and higher odds of a home postpartum care visit. Women in Private Obstetric Care were more likely to have their labour induced, a scheduled caesarean birth, experience informed consent processes for caesarean, and report highest quality interpersonal care, but less likely to experience unassisted vaginal birth and informed consent for Syntocinon to birth their placenta. There is an urgent need to communicate variations between maternity models across the range of outcome and experiential measures that are important to women; build more rigorous comparative evidence for Private Midwifery Care; and prioritise experiential and out-of-pocket cost comparisons in further research to enable woman-centred informed decision-making.

摘要

我们旨在直接比较澳大利亚昆士兰州提供的主要产妇护理模式下女性怀孕和产后的结果和体验。我们对 2012 年在昆士兰州最近分娩的全州范围内女性样本中收集的自我报告数据进行了二次分析(响应率=30.4%)。使用逻辑回归来估计与三种模式(GP 共享护理、公共助产连续性护理、私人产科护理)相关的结果和体验的可能性,与标准公共护理相比,调整了相关的产妇特征和临床协变量。在 2802 名女性中,18.2%接受标准公共护理,21.7%接受 GP 共享护理,12.9%接受公共助产连续性护理,47.1%接受私人产科护理。在 GP 共享护理方面,女性之间的差异很小。在公共助产连续性护理中,女性接受计划性剖腹产的可能性较小,而未经干预的阴道分娩的可能性较大,在分娩过程中更自由地活动,在诱导分娩、阴道检查、胎儿监测和使用催产素娩出胎盘方面更能获得知情同意,报告的人际护理质量最高。她们的阴道检查较少,发生会阴创伤需要缝合的可能性较低,分娩后焦虑程度较低,产后住院时间较短,产后家庭护理访问的可能性较高。在私人产科护理中,女性更有可能接受分娩诱导、计划性剖腹产,更有可能获得剖腹产的知情同意,报告的人际护理质量最高,但不太可能经历未经干预的阴道分娩和使用催产素娩出胎盘的知情同意。迫切需要沟通各种产妇护理模式在对女性重要的一系列结果和体验措施方面的差异;为私人助产护理建立更严格的比较证据;并在进一步的研究中优先考虑体验和自付费用比较,以便为以女性为中心的知情决策提供依据。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/368c/9275696/817e142b1943/pone.0271105.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验