A comparison of midwife-led care versus obstetrician-led care for low-risk women in Japan.

BACKGROUND:Continuity of midwife-led care is recommended in maternity care because of its various positive outcomes. In Japan, midwife-led care is receiving broad attention as well. In order to popularise midwifery care within the entire system of perinatal care in Japan, there is a need to show evidence that continuity of midwife care for women will bring about positive outcomes. AIM:The objectives of this study were to compare the health outcomes of women and infants who received midwife-led care with obstetrician-led care in Japan. METHODS:This was an observational study using non-random purposive sampling with a survey questionnaire. Settings where midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care were chosen by purposive samples. Participants were low-risk women who received antenatal care and delivered a term-singleton-infant at the participating settings during the research period. Measurements were: Women-centred care pregnancy questionnaire, Stein's maternity blues questionnaire, and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. FINDINGS:Midwife-led care was perceived by women to be beneficial and had no adverse outcomes compared to obstetrician-led care. Main findings are: (1) Perception of Women-centred care was higher; (2) Less premature rupture of membranes, and the Apgar scores of the infants were similar; (3) Exclusively breast-feeding during hospitalisation and at one-month postpartum; (4) Stein's maternity blues scale scores was lower in women who received midwife-led care than those who received obstetrician-led care. CONCLUSIONS:Continuity of midwife-led care was perceived by women to be beneficial and had no adverse outcomes. Therefore, midwife-led care in low-risk pregnancy could be applicable and recommended.