Continuity obstetric care demonstrates greater vaginal birth after caesarean success.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Abstract:
      Background: Australia's caesarean rate is higher than Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) average, and is rising. Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is safe for selected women. Midwifery continuity of care (CoC) is associated with higher rates of vaginal birth compared to other models; however, impacts on VBAC attempts and success are unknown. Aims: The primary aim was to determine if there is a difference in achieving VBAC between CoC and non‐CoC (NCoC) models. The secondary aim was to determine if there is a difference in the proportion of women attempting VBAC between these models. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of antenatal records and birthing data of all women who birthed in 2021 with one or more previous caesareans. Women were included if they had two or fewer caesareans. Women were excluded if contraindications to VBAC existed. Results: There were 142/1109 (12.8%) women who had previous caesareans and were eligible to attempt VBAC. There were 47/109 (43.1%) women who attempted vaginal birth after one caesarean with 78.7% success. After one caesarean, women in CoC were more likely to achieve VBAC than NCoC (45.2% vs 26.1%; relative risk (RR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.04–3.00), although when stratified by private and midwifery CoC models, women in midwifery CoC models were more likely to be successful (private RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.23–2.07 vs midwifery RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.50–4.11). Women in CoC were more likely to attempt VBAC (54.7% vs 34.8%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02–2.41), and receive counselling about VBAC (92.5% vs 62%; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.41–3.11). Conclusion: CoC improves the rate of attempted and successful VBAC through several factors, including increased counselling and greater provision of birth choices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
    • Abstract:
      Copyright of Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)