Advertisement

State Scope of Practice Laws, Nurse-Midwifery Workforce, and Childbirth Procedures and Outcomes

Published:March 07, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2016.02.003

      Abstract

      Background

      Despite research indicating that health, cost, and quality of care outcomes in midwife-led maternity care are comparable with and in some case preferable to those for patients with physician-led care, midwifery plays a more important role in some U.S. states than in others. However, this variability is not well-understood.

      Objectives

      This study estimates the association between state scope of practice laws related to the autonomy of midwifery practice with the certified nurse-midwifery (CNM) workforce, access to midwife-attended births, and childbirth-related procedures and outcomes.

      Methods

      Using multivariate regression models, we analyzed Natality Detail File data from births occurring from 2009 to 2011. Each state was classified regarding autonomous midwifery practice (not requiring supervision or contractual agreements) based on Lexis legal search.

      Results

      States with autonomous practice laws had an average of 4.85 CNMs per 1,000 births, compared with 2.17 in states where CNM practice is subject to collaborative agreement. In states with autonomous CNM practice, women had higher odds of having a CNM-attended birth (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.59; p = .004), compared with women in states where midwifery is subject to collaborative agreement. In addition, women in states with autonomous practice had lower odds of cesarean delivery (AOR, 0.87; p = .016), preterm birth (AOR, 0.87; p < .001), and low birth weight (AOR, 0.89; p = .001), compared with women in states without such practice.

      Conclusions

      States with regulations that support autonomous midwifery practice have a larger nurse-midwifery workforce, and a greater proportion of CNM-attended births. Correlations between autonomous practice laws and better birth outcomes suggest future policy efforts to enhance access to midwifery services may be beneficial to pregnancy outcomes and infant health.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Women's Health Issues
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Aliyu M.H.
        • Jolly P.E.
        • Ehiri J.E.
        • Salihu H.M.
        High parity and adverse birth outcomes: Exploring the maze.
        Birth. 2005; 32: 45-59
      1. American College of Nurse-Midwives. (2016). Fact sheet: Essential Facts about Midwives. Available: http://www.midwife.org/acnm/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000005948/EssentialFactsAboutMidwives-021116FINAL.pdf. Accessed: April 16, 2016.

      2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. (2014). Obstetric consensus: Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Available: www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Obstetric-Care-Consensus-Series/Safe-Prevention-of-the-Primary-Cesarean-Delivery. Accessed: June 22, 2015.

      3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Births: Final data for 2014. (2015a). Available: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf. Accessed: January 18, 2016.

      4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Births: Final data for 2013. (2015b). Available: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf. Accessed: June 22, 2015.

      5. Congress. (2014). H.R.4385-To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the designation of maternity care health professional shortage areas. Available: www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4385/text. Accessed: June 22, 2015.

        • Davis-Floyd R.
        ACNM and MANA: Divergent histories and convergent trends.
        in: Davis-Floyd R. Johnson C. Mainstreaming midwives: The politics of change. Routledge, New York2006
        • Declercq E.R.
        Trends in midwife-attended births in the United States, 1989-2009.
        Journal of Midwifery and Womens Health. 2012; 57: 321-326
        • Declercq E.R.
        • Paine L.L.
        • Simmes D.R.
        • DeJoseph J.F.
        State regulation, payment policies, and nurse-midwife services.
        Health Affairs (Millwood). 1998; 17: 190-200
        • Declercq E.R.
        The transformation of American midwifery: 1975 to 1988.
        American Journal of Public Health. 1992; 82: 680-684
        • Diers D.
        Finding midwifery in administrative data systems.
        Journal of Midwifery and Womens Health. 2007; 52: 98-105
        • Geller E.J.
        • Wu J.M.
        • Jannelli M.L.
        • Nguyen T.V.
        • Visco A.G.
        Neonatal outcomes associated with planned vaginal versus planned primary cesarean delivery.
        Journal of Perinatology. 2010; 30: 258-264
        • Jolly M.
        • Sebire N.
        • Harris J.
        • Robinson S.
        • Regan L.
        The risks associated with pregnancy in women aged 35 years or older.
        Human Reproduction. 2000; 15: 2433-2437
        • Kabir A.A.
        • Pridjian G.
        • Steinmann W.C.
        • Herrera E.A.
        • Khan M.M.
        Racial differences in cesareans: An analysis of U.S. 2001 National Inpatient Sample Data.
        Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2005; 105: 710-718
        • Kozhimannil K.B.
        • Attanasio L.B.
        • Yang Y.T.
        • Avery M.D.
        • Declercq E.R.
        Midwifery care and patient-provider communication in maternity decisions.
        Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2015; 19: 1608-1615
      6. Lancet. (2014). Midwifery. Available: www.thelancet.com/series/midwifery. Accessed: June 22, 2015.

        • Liu G.G.
        Birth outcomes and the effectiveness of prenatal care.
        Health Services Research. 1998; 32: 805-823
        • Luo Z.C.
        • Wilkins R.
        • Kramer M.S.
        • Fetal and Infant Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System
        Effect of neighbourhood income and maternal education on birth outcomes: A population-based study.
        CMAJ. 2006; 174: 1415-1420
      7. March of Dimes. (2013). Premature birth: The financial impact on business. Available: www.marchofdimes.org/materials/premature-birth-the-financial-impact-on-business.pdf. Accessed: June 22, 2015.

        • Martin J.A.
        • Wilson E.C.
        • Osterman M.J.
        • Saadi E.W.
        • Sutton S.R.
        • Hamilton B.E.
        Assessing the quality of medical and health data from the 2003 birth certificate revision: Results from two states.
        National Vital Statistics Report. 2013; 62: 1-19
      8. ME. Code R. § 02–373.

      9. ME. Code R. § 02–380.

      10. ME. Code R. § 02-380-8 et. seq.

        • National Center for Health Statistics
        Natality Detail File 2009–2011.
        Author, Hyattsville, MD2009-2011
      11. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2014). Intrapartum care: Care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. Available: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG190. Accessed: June 22, 2015.

      12. National Partnership for Women & Families. (2013). The cost of having a baby in the United States. Available: http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/reports/cost/. Accessed: June 22, 2015.

      13. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 38-607; 38–609.

      14. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 38–610.

      15. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 38–618.

      16. New York Times. (2014). Are midwives safer than doctors? Available: www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/opinion/are-midwives-safer-than-doctors.html. Accessed: June 22, 2015.

        • Pollack H.
        • Lantz P.M.
        • Frohna J.G.
        Maternal smoking and adverse birth outcomes among singletons and twins.
        American Journal of Public Health. 2000; 90: 395-400
        • Reichman N.E.
        • Teitler J.O.
        Timing of enhanced prenatal care and birth outcomes in New Jersey's HealthStart program.
        Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2005; 9: 151-158
        • Renfrew M.J.
        • McFadden A.
        • Bastos M.H.
        • Campbell J.
        • Channon A.A.
        • Cheung N.F.
        • Declercq E.
        Midwifery and quality care: Findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care.
        Lancet. 2014; 384: 1129-1145
        • Sandall J.
        • Soltani H.
        • Gates S.
        • Shennan A.
        • Devane D.
        Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.
        Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013; : CD004667
        • Shah P.S.
        • Zao J.
        • Ali S.
        • Knowledge Synthesis Group of Determinants of preterm/LBW births
        Maternal marital status and birth outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analyses.
        Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2011; 15: 1097-1109
        • Yang Y.T.
        • Mello M.M.
        • Subramanian S.V.
        • Studdert D.S.
        Relationship between malpractice litigation pressure and rates of cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean section.
        Medical Care. 2009; 47: 234-242

      Biography

      Y. Tony Yang, ScD, LLM, MPH, has a main scholarly interest focused on policy issues at the intersection of the legal and health systems. He takes an empirical approach to most research, blending the statistical sciences with more traditional legal research methods.

      Biography

      Laura B. Attanasio, MS, is a PhD student in Health Services Research, Policy and Administration at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. She received a BA in anthropology from Vassar College. Her research focuses on reproductive health.

      Biography

      Katy B. Kozhimannil, PhD, MPA, conducts research to inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of health policy impacting reproductive-age women and families. She researches the policy impact among special populations, including working mothers, racial and ethnic minorities, low-income women, and rural populations.