Volume 25, Issue 2 pp. 73-80

Evaluation of One-to-One Midwifery: Women's Responses to Care

Christine McCourt BA, PhD

Christine McCourt BA, PhD

Christine McCourt is Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Midwifery Practice, and Senior Lecturer in Health Studies, and Lesley Page is the Queen Charlotte's Professor of Midwifery Practice, Center for Midwifery Practice, Thames Valley University, London,

Search for more papers by this author
Lesley Page MSc, BA, RN, RM RNT, RMT

Lesley Page MSc, BA, RN, RM RNT, RMT

Christine McCourt is Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Midwifery Practice, and Senior Lecturer in Health Studies, and Lesley Page is the Queen Charlotte's Professor of Midwifery Practice, Center for Midwifery Practice, Thames Valley University, London,

Search for more papers by this author
Jenny Hewison MA, MSc, PhD

Jenny Hewison MA, MSc, PhD

Jenny Hewison is Senior Lecturer in Psychology, and Andy Vail is Senior Medical Statistician, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

Search for more papers by this author
Andy Vail MSc

Andy Vail MSc

Jenny Hewison is Senior Lecturer in Psychology, and Andy Vail is Senior Medical Statistician, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 04 January 2002
Citations: 60
Dr. Christine McCourt Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Midwifery Practice, Thames Valley University, 32–38 Uxbridge Road, Ealing, London W5 2BS, United Kingdom.

This research was funded by the King's Fund and by core grants to the Centre for Midwifery Practice from Johnson & Johnson Philanthropy Committee, Maidenhead, United Kingdom.

Abstract

Background:

One-to-one midwifery was a demonstration project introduced into a London-based maternity service in 1993 to put into practice the new government policy for maternity services in England. Evaluation was integral to the development of the project.

Methods:

The evaluation of women's responses was conducted between August 1994 and August 1995 based on a longitudinal, self-completion questionnaire, interviews, and focus groups. Women in the study group (n= 728) received the new service and women in the control group (n= 675) received conventional care. The study design integrated quantitative and qualitative methods and went beyond a simple estimation of satisfaction with care.

Results:

Satisfaction with antenatal and birth care was generally high, but study group women showed more positive responses overall. Both groups showed a preference for continuity of caregiver, but expectations were higher in the study group (72% of the study group and 42% of the control group preferred to see one caregiver). Both groups had less satisfied responses to hospital postnatal care (50% study and 54% control group were very satisfied). Study group women showed greater preparedness for birth than control group women (18% vs 12%“very well prepared”) and for the time after the baby's birth (26% vs 15%“very prepared”).

Conclusions:

The study demonstrated that women were more satisfied with the one-to-one model of care. Taken together with the results of clinical and economic audit and professional responses, the evaluation suggests that this model should be developed and evaluated further to gain a greater understanding of women's needs of the maternity service. (BIRTH 25:2 June 1998)

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.