Changing models of public antenatal care in Australia: Is current practice meeting the needs of vulnerable populations?

Stephanie Brown, Georgina A. Sutherland, Jane M. Gunn, Jane S. Yelland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: to investigate women's views and experiences of public antenatal care. Design: population-based survey in two states. Setting: South Australia and Victoria, Australia. Participants: 4366 women surveyed at 5-6 months post partum. Findings: of 8468 eligible women mailed the survey, 52% returned completed questionnaires. Fifty-seven per cent of women (2496/4339) received public antenatal care. Of these, half attended a GP for some/all antenatal visits, 38% attended a public hospital clinic or midwives clinic, and 12% had primary midwife care, mostly in a midwifery group practice. Women with complex needs - young women, those experiencing multiple social health problems, women of non-English speaking background, and women at higher risk of complications in pregnancy - were the least likely to say that care met their needs. Women attending a GP or midwife as a primary caregiver were the most positive about their antenatal care: 69% and 74% respectively describing their antenatal care as 'very good'. Women attending a standard public hospital clinic were the least positive about their antenatal care with only 48% rating their care as 'very good'. Women enroling in GP shared care or attending a midwives clinic at a public hospital gave intermediate ratings. Conclusion and implications for practice: Models of public antenatal care involving a designated lead primary caregiver (GP or midwife) came closest to meeting women's need for information, individualised care and support.

LanguageEnglish
Pages303-309
Number of pages7
JournalMidwifery
Volume30
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2014

Keywords

  • Antenatal care
  • Patient experience
  • Vulnerable populations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • Maternity and Midwifery

Cite this

Brown, Stephanie ; Sutherland, Georgina A. ; Gunn, Jane M. ; Yelland, Jane S. / Changing models of public antenatal care in Australia : Is current practice meeting the needs of vulnerable populations?. In: Midwifery. 2014 ; Vol. 30, No. 3. pp. 303-309.
@article{1368a61137a84a2c9681e39ee9638519,
title = "Changing models of public antenatal care in Australia: Is current practice meeting the needs of vulnerable populations?",
abstract = "Objective: to investigate women's views and experiences of public antenatal care. Design: population-based survey in two states. Setting: South Australia and Victoria, Australia. Participants: 4366 women surveyed at 5-6 months post partum. Findings: of 8468 eligible women mailed the survey, 52{\%} returned completed questionnaires. Fifty-seven per cent of women (2496/4339) received public antenatal care. Of these, half attended a GP for some/all antenatal visits, 38{\%} attended a public hospital clinic or midwives clinic, and 12{\%} had primary midwife care, mostly in a midwifery group practice. Women with complex needs - young women, those experiencing multiple social health problems, women of non-English speaking background, and women at higher risk of complications in pregnancy - were the least likely to say that care met their needs. Women attending a GP or midwife as a primary caregiver were the most positive about their antenatal care: 69{\%} and 74{\%} respectively describing their antenatal care as 'very good'. Women attending a standard public hospital clinic were the least positive about their antenatal care with only 48{\%} rating their care as 'very good'. Women enroling in GP shared care or attending a midwives clinic at a public hospital gave intermediate ratings. Conclusion and implications for practice: Models of public antenatal care involving a designated lead primary caregiver (GP or midwife) came closest to meeting women's need for information, individualised care and support.",
keywords = "Antenatal care, Patient experience, Vulnerable populations",
author = "Stephanie Brown and Sutherland, {Georgina A.} and Gunn, {Jane M.} and Yelland, {Jane S.}",
year = "2014",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.midw.2013.10.018",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "303--309",
journal = "Midwifery",
issn = "0266-6138",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "3",

}

Changing models of public antenatal care in Australia : Is current practice meeting the needs of vulnerable populations? / Brown, Stephanie; Sutherland, Georgina A.; Gunn, Jane M.; Yelland, Jane S.

In: Midwifery, Vol. 30, No. 3, 01.03.2014, p. 303-309.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Changing models of public antenatal care in Australia

T2 - Midwifery

AU - Brown, Stephanie

AU - Sutherland, Georgina A.

AU - Gunn, Jane M.

AU - Yelland, Jane S.

PY - 2014/3/1

Y1 - 2014/3/1

N2 - Objective: to investigate women's views and experiences of public antenatal care. Design: population-based survey in two states. Setting: South Australia and Victoria, Australia. Participants: 4366 women surveyed at 5-6 months post partum. Findings: of 8468 eligible women mailed the survey, 52% returned completed questionnaires. Fifty-seven per cent of women (2496/4339) received public antenatal care. Of these, half attended a GP for some/all antenatal visits, 38% attended a public hospital clinic or midwives clinic, and 12% had primary midwife care, mostly in a midwifery group practice. Women with complex needs - young women, those experiencing multiple social health problems, women of non-English speaking background, and women at higher risk of complications in pregnancy - were the least likely to say that care met their needs. Women attending a GP or midwife as a primary caregiver were the most positive about their antenatal care: 69% and 74% respectively describing their antenatal care as 'very good'. Women attending a standard public hospital clinic were the least positive about their antenatal care with only 48% rating their care as 'very good'. Women enroling in GP shared care or attending a midwives clinic at a public hospital gave intermediate ratings. Conclusion and implications for practice: Models of public antenatal care involving a designated lead primary caregiver (GP or midwife) came closest to meeting women's need for information, individualised care and support.

AB - Objective: to investigate women's views and experiences of public antenatal care. Design: population-based survey in two states. Setting: South Australia and Victoria, Australia. Participants: 4366 women surveyed at 5-6 months post partum. Findings: of 8468 eligible women mailed the survey, 52% returned completed questionnaires. Fifty-seven per cent of women (2496/4339) received public antenatal care. Of these, half attended a GP for some/all antenatal visits, 38% attended a public hospital clinic or midwives clinic, and 12% had primary midwife care, mostly in a midwifery group practice. Women with complex needs - young women, those experiencing multiple social health problems, women of non-English speaking background, and women at higher risk of complications in pregnancy - were the least likely to say that care met their needs. Women attending a GP or midwife as a primary caregiver were the most positive about their antenatal care: 69% and 74% respectively describing their antenatal care as 'very good'. Women attending a standard public hospital clinic were the least positive about their antenatal care with only 48% rating their care as 'very good'. Women enroling in GP shared care or attending a midwives clinic at a public hospital gave intermediate ratings. Conclusion and implications for practice: Models of public antenatal care involving a designated lead primary caregiver (GP or midwife) came closest to meeting women's need for information, individualised care and support.

KW - Antenatal care

KW - Patient experience

KW - Vulnerable populations

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894672578&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.midw.2013.10.018

DO - 10.1016/j.midw.2013.10.018

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 303

EP - 309

JO - Midwifery

JF - Midwifery

SN - 0266-6138

IS - 3

ER -