Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10137/5651
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGao Yen
dc.contributor.authorGold Len
dc.contributor.authorJosif Cen
dc.contributor.authorBar-Zeev Sen
dc.contributor.authorSteenkamp Men
dc.contributor.authorBarclay Len
dc.contributor.authorZhao Yen
dc.contributor.authorTracy Sen
dc.contributor.authorKildea Sen
dc.date2013en
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-15T23:01:27Zen
dc.date.available2018-05-15T23:01:27Zen
dc.date.issued2014-04en
dc.identifier.citationMidwifery 2014-04; 30(4): 447-55en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10137/5651en
dc.description.abstractto compare the cost-effectiveness of two models of service delivery: Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) and baseline cohort. a retrospective and prospective cohort study. a regional hospital in Northern Territory (NT), Australia. baseline cohort included all Aboriginal mothers (n=412), and their infants (n=416), from two remote communities who gave birth between 2004 and 2006. The MGP cohort included all Aboriginal mothers (n=310), and their infants (n=315), from seven communities who gave birth between 2009 and 2011. The baseline cohort mothers and infant's medical records were retrospectively audited and the MGP cohort data were prospectively collected. All the direct costs, from the Department of Health (DH) perspective, occurred from the first antenatal presentation to six weeks post partum for mothers and up to 28 days post births for infants were included for analysis. analysis was performed with SPSS 19.0 and Stata 12.1. Independent sample of t-tests and χ2 were conducted. women receiving MGP care had significantly more antenatal care, more ultrasounds, were more likely to be admitted to hospital antenatally, and had more postnatal care in town. The MGP cohort had significantly reduced average length of stay for infants admitted to Special Care Nursery (SCN). There was no significant difference between the two cohorts for major birth outcomes such as mode of birth, preterm birth rate and low birth weight. Costs savings (mean A$703) were found, although these were not statistically significant, for women and their infants receiving MGP care compared to the baseline cohort. for remote dwelling Aboriginal women of all risk who travelled to town for birth, MGP was likely to be cost effective, and women received better care and resulting in equivalent birth outcomes compared with the baseline maternity care.en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.subjectAustraliaen
dc.subjectCost-consequences analysisen
dc.subjectIndigenousen
dc.subjectMidwifery Group Practiceen
dc.titleA cost-consequences analysis of a midwifery group practice for Aboriginal mothers and infants in the top end of the Northern Territory, Australia.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.typeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'ten
dc.identifier.journaltitleMidwiferyen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.midw.2013.04.004en
dc.identifier.pubmedidhttps://www.ezpdhcs.nt.gov.au/login?url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed//23786990en
dc.subject.meshAdulten
dc.subject.meshCohort Studiesen
dc.subject.meshCosts and Cost Analysisen
dc.subject.meshFemaleen
dc.subject.meshHumansen
dc.subject.meshInfant, Newbornen
dc.subject.meshMaternal-Child Health Servicesen
dc.subject.meshMidwiferyen
dc.subject.meshNorthern Territoryen
dc.subject.meshOceanic Ancestry Groupen
dc.subject.meshPractice Patterns, Nurses'en
dc.subject.meshProspective Studiesen
dc.subject.meshRural Health Servicesen
dc.subject.meshYoung Adulten
dc.subject.meshNurse's Roleen
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity Centre for Rural Health North Coast, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Electronic address: yu.gao@ucrh.edu.au..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDeakin Population Health SRC, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia. Electronic address: lisa.gold@deakin.edu.au..en
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity Centre for Rural Health North Coast, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Electronic address: cfar3313@uni.sydney.edu.au..en
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity Centre for Rural Health North Coast, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Electronic address: sbarzeev@mail.usyd.edu.au..en
dc.identifier.affiliationLife Course and Intergenerational Health Research Group (LIGHt), Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia. Electronic address: malinda.steenkamp@adelaide.edu.au..en
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity Centre for Rural Health North Coast, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. Electronic address: Lesley.barclay@sydney.edu.au..en
dc.identifier.affiliationHealth Gains Planning, Northern Territory Department of Health, Darwin, NT 0811, Australia. Electronic address: Yuejen.zhao@nt.gov.au..en
dc.identifier.affiliationSydney Nursing School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Electronic address: stracy@ozemail.com.au..en
dc.identifier.affiliationWomen's Health and Newborn Services, Australia Catholic University and Mater Mothers Hospital, Brisbane 4101, Australia. Electronic address: sue.kildea@acu.edu.au..en
dc.identifier.pubmedurihttps://www.ezpdhcs.nt.gov.au/login?url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed//23786990en
Appears in Collections:(a) NT Health Research Collection

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in ePublications are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing

Pubmed

PubMed References

Who's citing