Midwifery · 2019
An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis: Comparison between a midwife-led birth unit and a standard obstetric unit within the same hospital in Belgium.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Isaline Gonze, Marie-Christine Closon, Rudy Van Tielen, Caroline Daelemans, Yvon Englert
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare midwife-led and consultant-led obstetrical care for women with uncomplicated low-risk pregnancies. We estimated costs and maternal outcomes in both units to achieve a cost-effectiveness ratio.
DESIGN: The cost-analysis was made according to the "intention to treat" concept in order to minimize bias associated with the non-randomization of participants. At the obstetric-led unit, women received care from both midwives and medical staff while those in the alternative structure called 'Le Cocon' only received care from midwives.
SETTING: The obstetric-led unit of the Erasme University-Hospital in Brussels and its alongside midwife-led unit.
PARTICIPANTS: The study population included all low-risk pregnant women from 1 March 2014 until 31 October 2015 who were affiliated to the MLOZ (Mutualités Libres-Onafhankelijke Ziekenfondsen; third Belgian statutory health care insurer).
INTERVENTIONS: The cost calculation involved a bottom-up approach. The health care consumption of each participant was obtained from MLOZ's data. The study included costs occurred the beginning of pregnancy until 3 months post-partum. Clinical data were extracted from the patient medical records.
FINDINGS: Compared to the traditional obstetric-led unit, the alternative midwife-led unit was associated with a cost reduction for the national payer (∆ = -€397.39, p = 0.046) and for the patient (∆ = - €44.19, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in rates of caesarean, instrumental birth and epidural analgesia between MLU and OLU. A sensitivity analysis was performed (Appendix C) but does not change the overall results and conclusions.
KEY CONCLUSIONS: Due to the small size of the samples, no statistical differences were found. More analysis is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness regarding the use of epidural analgesia, caesarean and instrumental birth rates in the midwife-led unit.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Given the economical findings, this could contribute to reduce health expenditures for both women (out of pocket) and state (public payer via health care insurers).
DESIGN: The cost-analysis was made according to the "intention to treat" concept in order to minimize bias associated with the non-randomization of participants. At the obstetric-led unit, women received care from both midwives and medical staff while those in the alternative structure called 'Le Cocon' only received care from midwives.
SETTING: The obstetric-led unit of the Erasme University-Hospital in Brussels and its alongside midwife-led unit.
PARTICIPANTS: The study population included all low-risk pregnant women from 1 March 2014 until 31 October 2015 who were affiliated to the MLOZ (Mutualités Libres-Onafhankelijke Ziekenfondsen; third Belgian statutory health care insurer).
INTERVENTIONS: The cost calculation involved a bottom-up approach. The health care consumption of each participant was obtained from MLOZ's data. The study included costs occurred the beginning of pregnancy until 3 months post-partum. Clinical data were extracted from the patient medical records.
FINDINGS: Compared to the traditional obstetric-led unit, the alternative midwife-led unit was associated with a cost reduction for the national payer (∆ = -€397.39, p = 0.046) and for the patient (∆ = - €44.19, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in rates of caesarean, instrumental birth and epidural analgesia between MLU and OLU. A sensitivity analysis was performed (Appendix C) but does not change the overall results and conclusions.
KEY CONCLUSIONS: Due to the small size of the samples, no statistical differences were found. More analysis is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness regarding the use of epidural analgesia, caesarean and instrumental birth rates in the midwife-led unit.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Given the economical findings, this could contribute to reduce health expenditures for both women (out of pocket) and state (public payer via health care insurers).