Comparison of midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care on maternal and neonatal outcomes in Singapore: A retrospective cohort study

Objectives: to examine the maternal and neonatal outcomes of low-risk women receiving midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care. Design, setting, & participants: a retrospective cohort study design was used. Data were collected from a large tertiary maternity hospital in Singapore. This involved a medical record review of 368 women who had singleton, normal to low-risk, term pregnancy, and received midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care between 2013 to 2014. Measurements: a data extraction tool was used to solicit information on the outcome measures, including duration of labour, mode of delivery, episiotomy, and 5-minutes Apgar score (< 7). Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the women's 'characteristics chi(2) and independent sample t-test were used to assess the differences in demographics and birth outcomes. Multiple linear and logistic regressions were used to examine the difference between the two comparison groups after adjusted for potential confounders. Findings: statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the midwife-led care group and the obstetrician-led care group in terms of the total duration of labour and total antenatal visits were found. No statistically significant differences were observed for mode of delivery, episiotomy, intrapartum pain management, labour augmentation, labour induction, postpartum haemorrhage, perineal trauma, birth status, 5minutes Apgar score (< 7), low birth weight (< 2500 g), and neonatal admission to intensive care units between the midwife-led care group and the obstetrician-led care group. Key conclusions: while interventions such as episiotomies and labour augmentation were more common in the midwife-led care group, no significant differences were found for most of the outcome measures between the two maternity groups except for total antenatal visits and duration of labour. Findings suggest that midwife-led care is as safe and effective as obstetrician-led care in achieving optimal birth outcomes, with no higher risk of adversities for low-risk women. Additional studies are necessary to continuously evaluate midwife-led care and to promote normal birth and reduce excessive use of obstetric procedures. Implications for practice: the provision of midwife-led care should continue to be extended as an additional choice in maternity care for women with low-risk pregnancies. Professional staff development with continuous education is needed to clear misconceptions about midwife-led care and to promote awareness in current practice guidelines. Prospective evaluation of midwife-led care will be beneficial in informing policies and practise guidelines.