初级助产士持续护理(个案助产):利用 COSMOS 随机对照试验结果进行成本分析

Q4 Medicine
Emily J Callander, Hannah Jackson, H. McLachlan, Mary-Ann Davey, Della A Forster
{"title":"初级助产士持续护理(个案助产):利用 COSMOS 随机对照试验结果进行成本分析","authors":"Emily J Callander, Hannah Jackson, H. McLachlan, Mary-Ann Davey, Della A Forster","doi":"10.1136/gocm-2024-000008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.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.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.Caseload midwifery in low-risk women is cost-neutral to public hospitals and cost-saving to public funders.Continuity of midwifery for low-risk women reduces costs to public funders, with no additional costs to hospitals.","PeriodicalId":34826,"journal":{"name":"Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery): a cost analysis using results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Emily J Callander, Hannah Jackson, H. McLachlan, Mary-Ann Davey, Della A Forster\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/gocm-2024-000008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.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.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.Caseload midwifery in low-risk women is cost-neutral to public hospitals and cost-saving to public funders.Continuity of midwifery for low-risk women reduces costs to public funders, with no additional costs to hospitals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34826,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/gocm-2024-000008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/gocm-2024-000008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

个案助产(助产护理人员的连续性)带来的好处包括降低剖腹产率、降低早产和死产风险,以及提高产妇对护理的满意度。尽管有这些优点,但对额外成本的担忧阻碍了其广泛实施。本研究从公立医院和公共资助者的角度出发,对个案助产与标准产科护理的成本进行了比较分析。被随机分配接受个案护理的妇女在产前、产中和产后均接受一名初级助产士的护理,并由一名 "后备 "助产士提供部分护理。接受标准护理的妇女则接受由助产士主导的不同程度的连续性护理、初级产科护理或社区医疗护理。成本分析比较了公立医院和公共资助者的医疗资源平均成本差异。此外,预算影响分析还估算了2023年至2027年期间卫生系统的总成本。对于公立医院而言,接受个案助产护理(n=1146)与标准护理(n=1151)的妇女在总成本上没有显著差异(12 363澳元(标清:4967澳元)vs12 323澳元(标清:7404澳元);p=0.85)。相反,接受个案助产服务的妇女(20 330 澳元(标准差:8312 澳元))与接受标准护理的妇女(21 637 澳元(标准差:11 818 澳元);P <0.001)相比,公共资助者的支出较低。预算影响分析估计,在未来5年内,澳大利亚扩大使用个案助产服务可为卫生系统节省6.25亿澳元。对低风险妇女实施个案助产服务对公立医院来说不增加成本,对公共资助者来说可节省成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery): a cost analysis using results from the COSMOS randomised controlled trial
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.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.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.Caseload midwifery in low-risk women is cost-neutral to public hospitals and cost-saving to public funders.Continuity of midwifery for low-risk women reduces costs to public funders, with no additional costs to hospitals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine
Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信