Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery): a cost analysis using results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial

Callander, EJ; Jackson, H; McLachlan, HL; Davey, M-A; Forster, DA

Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery): a cost analysis using results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial

Callander, EJ Jackson, H

McLachlan, HL Davey, M-A Forster, DA

Permalink

Publisher:: BMJ
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine, 2024, 4, (2), pp. e000008
Issue Date:: 2024-06

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (287.88 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Callander, EJ
dc.contributor.author	Jackson, H https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9788-8821
dc.contributor.author	McLachlan, HL
dc.contributor.author	Davey, M-A
dc.contributor.author	Forster, DA
dc.date.accessioned	2024-09-30T02:02:09Z
dc.date.available	2024-05-02
dc.date.available	2024-09-30T02:02:09Z
dc.date.issued	2024-06
dc.identifier.citation	Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine, 2024, 4, (2), pp. e000008
dc.identifier.issn	2667-1646
dc.identifier.issn	2667-1646
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/181074
dc.description.abstract	<jats:sec><jats:title>Introduction</jats:title><jats:p>Caseload midwifery (continuity of midwifery carer) offers benefits including lower caesarean section rates, lower risks of preterm birth and stillbirth, and improved maternal satisfaction of care. Despite these advantages, concerns about additional costs hinder widespread implementation. This study examines the cost of caseload midwifery compared with standard maternity care from the perspective of both public hospitals and public funders.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A cost analysis was conducted using data from a randomised controlled trial of 2314 low-risk pregnant women in Melbourne, Australia. Women randomised to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a primary midwife, with some care provided by a ‘back-up’ midwife. Women in standard care received midwifery-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care or community-based medical care. The cost analysis compared differences in mean costs of health resources to public hospitals and to public funders. Additionally, a budget impact analysis estimated total costs to the health system between 2023 and 2027.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>For public hospitals, there was no significant difference in overall costs between women receiving caseload midwifery (n=1146) versus standard care (n=1151) ($A12 363 (SD: $A4967) vs $A12 323 (SD: $A7404); p=0.85). Conversely, public funders incurred lower expenditures for women receiving caseload midwifery ($A20 330 (SD: $A8312)) versus standard care ($A21 637 (SD: $A11 818); p <0.001). The budget impact analysis estimated savings of $A625 million to the health system over the next 5 years with expanded access to caseload midwifery in Australia.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Caseload midwifery in low-risk women is cost-neutral to public hospitals and cost-saving to public funders.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Tweetable abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Continuity of midwifery for low-risk women reduces costs to public funders, with no additional costs to hospitals.</jats:p></jats:sec>
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	BMJ
dc.relation.ispartof	Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1136/gocm-2024-000008
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.title	Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery): a cost analysis using results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	4
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.rights.license	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.date.updated	2024-09-30T02:02:07Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	4
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

IntroductionCaseload midwifery (continuity of midwifery carer) offers benefits including lower caesarean section rates, lower risks of preterm birth and stillbirth, and improved maternal satisfaction of care. Despite these advantages, concerns about additional costs hinder widespread implementation. This study examines the cost of caseload midwifery compared with standard maternity care from the perspective of both public hospitals and public funders.MethodsA cost analysis was conducted using data from a randomised controlled trial of 2314 low-risk pregnant women in Melbourne, Australia. Women randomised to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum care from a primary midwife, with some care provided by a ‘back-up’ midwife. Women in standard care received midwifery-led care with varying levels of continuity, junior obstetric care or community-based medical care. The cost analysis compared differences in mean costs of health resources to public hospitals and to public funders. Additionally, a budget impact analysis estimated total costs to the health system between 2023 and 2027.ResultsFor public hospitals, there was no significant difference in overall costs between women receiving caseload midwifery (n=1146) versus standard care (n=1151) ($A12 363 (SD: $A4967) vs $A12 323 (SD: $A7404); p=0.85). Conversely, public funders incurred lower expenditures for women receiving caseload midwifery ($A20 330 (SD: $A8312)) versus standard care ($A21 637 (SD: $A11 818); p <0.001). The budget impact analysis estimated savings of $A625 million to the health system over the next 5 years with expanded access to caseload midwifery in Australia.ConclusionCaseload midwifery in low-risk women is cost-neutral to public hospitals and cost-saving to public funders.Tweetable abstractContinuity of midwifery for low-risk women reduces costs to public funders, with no additional costs to hospitals.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/181074