Cross-sectional survey of antenatal education attendance among nulliparous pregnant women in Sydney, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal education aims to provide expectant parents with strategies for dealing with pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood and may have the potential to reduce obstetric intervention and fear of childbirth. We aimed to investigate antenatal education attendance, reasons for and barriers to attending, and techniques taught and used to manage labour. METHODS: Antenatal and postnatal surveys were conducted among nulliparous women with a singleton pregnancy at two maternity hospitals in Sydney, Australia in 2018. Classes were classified into psychoprophylaxis, birth and parenting, other, or no classes. Reasons for and barriers to attendance, demographic characteristics, and techniques taught and used in labour were compared by class type, using Pearson's Chi Squared tests of independence. FINDINGS: 724 women were surveyed antenatally. The main reasons for attending classes were to better manage the birth (86 %), feel more secure in baby care (71 %) and as a parent (60 %); although this differed by class type. Reasons for not attending classes included being too busy (33 %) and cost (27 %). Epidural, breathing techniques, massage and nitrous oxide were the most common techniques taught. Women who attended psychoprophylaxis classes used a wider range of pain relief techniques in labour. Women found antenatal classes useful preparation for birth (94 %) and parenting (74 %). Women surveyed postnatally wanted more information on baby care/sleeping and breastfeeding. CONCLUSION: The majority of women found antenatal education useful and utilised techniques taught. Education providers should ensure breastfeeding and infant care information is provided, and barriers to attendance such as times and cost should be addressed.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Telehealth on Antenatal Screening and Services, Including for Mental Health and Domestic Violence: An Australian Mixed-Methods Study.

Introduction: Australian antenatal care includes specific screening and service provision for domestic and family violence (DFV) and mental health. However, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major care changes, including greatly expanded telehealth. Given difficulties in a safe assessment and management of disclosures via telehealth, DFV and mental health service provision might be substantially impacted. This study therefore aimed to assess COVID-19 effects on DFV and mental health screening, as well as broader service provision from the perspective of local maternity service providers. Methods: Mixed-methods study of staff surveys and interviews of staff directly involved in pregnancy care (doctors, midwives, and allied health) in three Sydney (Australia) maternity units, from October 2020 to March 2021. Surveys and interviews interrogated perceived effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on delivery (ensuring required services occurred), timeliness, and quality of (a) overall maternity care and (b) DFV and mental health screening and care; and also advantages and disadvantages of telehealth. Surveys were descriptively analyzed. Interviews were conducted online, recorded, and transcribed verbatim prior to thematic analysis. Results: In total, 17 interviews were conducted and 109 survey responses were received. Breakdown of survey respondents was 67% of midwives, 21% of doctors, and 10% of allied health. Over half of survey respondents felt the pandemic had a negative effect on delivery, timeliness, and quality of overall pregnancy care, and DFV and mental health screening and management. Perceived telehealth positives included convenience for women (73%) and reducing women's travel times (69%). Negative features included no physical examination (90%), difficulty regarding non-verbal cues (84%), difficulty if interpreter required (71%), and unsure if safe to ask some questions (62%). About 50% felt telehealth should continue post-pandemic, but for <25% of visits. Those perceived suitable for telehealth were low-risk and multiparous women, whereas those unsuited were high-risk pregnancy, non-English speaking, and/or mental health/psychosocial/DFV concerns. "Change to delivery of care" was the central interview theme, with subthemes of impact on mental health/DFV screening, telehealth (both positive and negative), staff impact (e.g., continuity of care disruption), and perceived impact on women and partners. Discussion: While telehealth may have an ongoing, post-pandemic role in Australian maternity care, staff believe that this should be limited in scope, mostly for low-risk pregnancies. Women with high risk due to physical health or mental health, DFV, and/or other social concerns were considered unsuited to telehealth.

Birth outcomes by type of attendance at antenatal education: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal education aims to prepare expectant parents for pregnancy, birth, and parenthood. Studies have reported antenatal education teaching breathing and relaxation methods for pain relief, termed psychoprophylaxis, is associated with reduction in caesarean section rates compared with general birth and parenting classes. Given the rising rates of caesarean section, we aimed to determine whether there was a difference in mode of birth in women based on the type of antenatal education attended. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional antenatal survey of nulliparous women ≥28 weeks gestation with a singleton pregnancy was conducted in two maternity hospitals in Sydney, Australia in 2018. Women were asked what type of antenatal education they attended and sent a follow-up survey post-birth. Hospital birth data were also obtained. Education was classified into four groups: psychoprophylaxis, birth and parenting, other, or none. RESULTS: Five hundred and five women with birth data were included. A higher proportion of women who attended psychoprophylaxis education had a vaginal birth (instrumental/spontaneous) (79%) compared with women who attended birth and parenting, other or no education (69%, 67%, 60%, respectively P = 0.045). After adjusting for maternal characteristics, birth and hospital factors, the association was attenuated (odds ratio 2.03; 95% CI 0.93-4.43). CONCLUSIONS: Women who attended psychoprophylaxis couple-based education had a trend toward higher rates of vaginal birth. Randomised trials comparing different types of antenatal education are required to determine whether psychoprophylaxis education can reduce caesarean section rates and improve other birth outcomes.

eLearning significantly improves maternity professionals' knowledge of the congenital cytomegalovirus prevention guidelines.

AIMS: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a preventable cause of neurodevelopmental disability. Australian guidelines recommend that pregnant women are informed about CMV to reduce their risk of infection; however, less than 10% of maternity health professionals routinely provide prevention advice. The aim was to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of an eLearning course for midwives to improve knowledge and confidence about CMV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants undertaking the course between March and November 2020 were invited to complete an evaluation questionnaire: before the course (T1), immediately after (T2) and three months post completion (T3). A linear mixed model was used to evaluate change in participant scores; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Midwives (316/363, 87%), midwifery students (29/363, 8%) and nurses (18/363, 5%) participated. At T1 80% indicated they had not received education about CMV. Total adjusted mean scores for questionnaires completed between T1 (n = 363) and T2 (n = 238) increased significantly (from 17.2 to 22.8, P < 0.001). Limited available T3 scores (n = 27) (-1.7, P < 0.001), while lower than T2, remained higher than at T1 (+3.6, P < 0.001). Participants' awareness of CMV information resources improved from 10 to 97% from T1 to T2. Confidence in providing CMV advice increased from 6 to 95% between T1 and T2 (P < 0.001) and was maintained at T3. Almost all (99%) participants indicated they would recommend the course to colleagues. CONCLUSION: Participants who completed the eLearning course had significantly improved knowledge and confidence in providing advice about CMV. Programs targeting other maternity health professionals should be considered, to further support the implementation of the congenital CMV prevention guidelines.

Harnessing technology to enable all women mobility in labour and birth: feasibility of implementing beltless non-invasive fetal ECG applying the NASSS framework.

BACKGROUND: A new wireless and beltless monitoring device utilising fetal and maternal electrocardiography (ECG) and uterine electromyography, known as 'non-invasive fetal ECG' (NIFECG) was registered for clinical use in Australia in 2018. The safety and reliability of NIFECG has been demonstrated in controlled settings for short periods during labour. As far as we are aware, at the time our study commenced, this was globally the first trial of such a device in an authentic clinical setting for the entire duration of a woman's labour. METHODS: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using NIFECG fetal monitoring for women undergoing continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour and birth. Women were eligible to participate in the study if they were at 36 weeks gestation or greater with a singleton pregnancy, planning to give birth vaginally and with obstetric indications as per local protocol (NSW Health Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring Guideline GL2018_025. 2018) for continuous intrapartum fetal monitoring. Written informed consent was received from participating women in antenatal clinic prior to the onset of labour. This single site clinical feasibility study took place between January and July 2020 at the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney, Australia. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to inform the analysis of results using the NASSS (Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale up, Spread and Sustainability) framework, a validated tool for analysing the implementation of new health technologies into clinical settings. RESULTS: Women responded positively about the comfort and freedom of movement afforded by the NIFECG. Midwives reported that when no loss of contact occurred, the device enabled them to focus less on the technology and more on supporting women's physical and emotional needs during labour. Midwives and obstetricians noticed the benefits for women but expressed a need for greater certainty about the reliability of the signal. CONCLUSION: The NIFECG device enables freedom of movement and positioning for labouring women and was well received by women and the majority of clinicians. Whilst measurement of the uterine activity was reliable, there was uncertainty for clinicians in relation to loss of contact of the fetal heart rate. If this can be ameliorated the device shows potential to be used as routinely as cardiotocography (CTG) for fetal monitoring. This is the first time the NASSS framework has been used to synthesise the implementation needs of a health technology in the care of women during labour and birth. Our findings contribute new knowledge about the determinants for implementation of a complex technology in a maternity care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Universal Trial Number is reU1111-1228-9845 and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registration Number is 12619000293167p. Trial registration occurred on the 20 February, 2019. The trial protocol may be viewed at http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=377027.

Short-Term Effects of Dexamethasone versus Betamethasone on Ultrasonic Measures of Fetal Well-Being: Cohort from a Blinded, Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Maternal corticosteroid administration for anticipated preterm birth is common; however, the corticosteroid effect on fetal ultrasound and cardiotocograph (CTG) remains contested. This study aimed to evaluate short-term ultrasound and CTG impact of (a) dexamethasone versus betamethasone (b) pooled corticosteroid effect. METHODS: Substudy of blinded randomized trial of dexamethasone versus betamethasone (given <34 weeks). Umbilical artery (UA), middle cerebral artery (MCA), ductus venosus (DV), and uterine artery Doppler, myocardial performance index (MPI), biophysical profile (BPP), and CTG measured pre-corticosteroid then 1, 2, 4, and 7 days post-corticosteroid. RESULTS: Of 47 fetuses (39 singleton; 4 dichorionic, diamniotic twins; and 4 monochorionic, diamniotic twins) in the February 2012-2013 period, 24 received dexamethasone and 23 betamethasone at average gestation 29.8 ± 2.9 weeks. Thirteen pregnancies (30%) had pre-corticosteroid fetal concerns (estimated weight <10th centile and/or abnormal UA/MCA Doppler). Few significant differences were seen post-corticosteroid: DV pulsatility index and right MPI initially decreased 15-20%, and average BPP decreased slightly on days 1-2. There were no major differential effects of dexamethasone versus betamethasone. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: No substantive post-corticosteroid effects were seen for most ultrasound/CTG measures in fetuses with heightened preterm birth risk but predominantly normal pre-corticosteroid measures. Clinically, this suggests avoiding overreliance on individual measures for delivery decisions post-corticosteroid; equally, multiple/marked ultrasound changes suggest true pathology and not corticosteroid effect.

Women's experiences of decision-making and beliefs in relation to planned caesarean section: A survey study.

BACKGROUND: The caesarean section (CS) rate is over 25% in many high-income countries, with a substantial minority of CSs occurring in women with low-risk pregnancies. CS decision-making is influenced by clinician and patient beliefs and preferences, and clinical guidelines increasingly stipulate the importance of shared decision-making (SDM). To what extent SDM occurs in practice is unclear. AIMS: To identify women's birth preferences and SDM experience regarding planned CS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Survey of women at eight Sydney hospitals booked for planned CS. Demographic data, initial mode of birth preferences, reason for CS, and experiences of SDM were elicited using questions with multiple choice lists, Likert scales, and open-ended responses. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data using content analysis. Responses of women who perceived their CS as 'requested' vs 'recommended' were compared. RESULTS: Of 151 respondents, repeat CS (48%) and breech presentation (14%) were the most common indications. Only 32% stated that at the beginning of pregnancy they had a definite preference for spontaneous labour and birth. Key reasons for wanting planned CS were to avoid another emergency CS, prior positive CS experience, and logistical planning. Although 15% of women felt pressured (or were unsure) about their CS decision, the majority reported positive experiences, with over 90% indicating they were informed about CS benefits and risks, had adequate information, and understood information provided. CONCLUSIONS: The majority (85%) of women appeared satisfied with the decision-making process, regardless of whether they perceived their CS as requested or recommended.

Maternal car driving capacity after birth: a pilot prospective study randomizing postnatal women to early verses late driving in a driving simulator.

Background: Women are commonly advised to avoid driving following cesarean section (CS), however, this advice is based upon little evidence.Aims: We aimed to assess a woman's capacity to drive a car postbirth using a driving simulator to objectively examine driving behavior and competencies.Materials and methods: We conducted a pilot, prospective, randomized study from a tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. Postnatal women who were regular drivers and had given birth by vaginal delivery (VD), elective cesarean section (ElCS) or emergency cesarean section (EmCS) were randomized to early (2-3 weeks post birth) or late (5-6 weeks post birth) driver simulator testing. Driving performance was measured by reaction time to simulated impediments, awareness, attention, braking ability, traffic infringements, and accidents. Analysis was by intention to treat. Outcomes were assessed using contingency analysis via two-sample t-tests and Wilcoxen rank-sum tests.Results: 66 women were randomized and 38 attended simulator testing (57.6%; 19 early, 19 late; 8 VD, 14 ElCS, 16 EmCS). There was no difference in reaction times, driver awareness, braking times, or traffic infringements by early versus late testing (all p > .05), nor by mode of birth (p > .05) amongst the women who completed driver testing. At 7-8 weeks, all women were driving, without an accident.Conclusions: Although the study is limited by small sample size, there was no difference in driving capability by early versus late driving time since birth, nor by mode of birth. Further research is needed, but we cannot provide evidence to discourage well women from driving from 2-3 weeks post birth.

Knowledge of congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV) in pregnant women in Australia is low, and improved with education.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common congenital infection and can cause hearing loss and neurodevelopmental disability in infected infants. International research shows women have limited knowledge about CMV. AIMS: To assess pregnant women's knowledge and attitudes about CMV before and after provision of information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of pregnant women between November 2017 and February 2018 at two Australian hospitals. Participating women completed an initial survey on maternal characteristics, knowledge of infections, and CMV risk behaviours. Participants were then given an information leaflet and completed a follow-up survey. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-seven women completed the initial survey, of whom 73/457 (16%) had heard of CMV. Behaviours increasing risk of CMV transmission were common: 58% reported regularly kissing their child on the lips; 57% did not always wash their hands after changing a wet nappy. Knowledge about CMV significantly improved after reading the leaflet in the 145 women completing the follow-up survey. More women correctly identified that CMV could cause deafness in a baby (35% before, 85% after), was spread by saliva (38% vs 94%) or urine (27% vs 86%) and prevented by hand-washing (55% vs 99%; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Knowledge about CMV was low in pregnant women. An educational leaflet was effective in improving knowledge.

Knowledge, advice and attitudes toward women driving a car after caesarean section or hysterectomy: A survey of obstetrician/gynaecologists and midwives.

BACKGROUND: Women are given variable information about when to recommence driving after surgery. AIMS: To assess obstetrician/gynaecologists' and midwives' knowledge, attitudes and advice about car driving after abdominal surgery including hysterectomy or caesarean section (CS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous SurveyMonkey™ survey was distributed to accredited trainees and Fellows of the Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and midwives registered with the Australian College of Midwives by email in November 2013. Demographic information, recommendations about driving, and reasoning behind these recommendations were collected. RESULTS: Nine hundred and seventy-seven clinician responses (15.8%) were analysed: 555 midwives, 92 trainees and 330 Fellows. Ninety-six percent gave advice about driving after surgery. Respondents considered pain (85.6%), medication (73.2%) and mobility (70.5%) the most important factors when advising on resumption of driving. After uncomplicated CS, 19% said they would advise a well woman that she could drive <4 weeks, 18% advised four weeks, 33% advised five to six weeks and 27% did not give a specific timeframe. Similar timeframes were given following hysterectomy. Of each professional group, trainees (49%) and midwives (48%) were more likely to advise waiting five to six weeks to resume driving compared with Fellows (9%) (P < 0.001). Although 71.5% of respondents thought that most women drove before four weeks, only 33.9% of respondents thought driving earlier than advice given was unsafe. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians frequently give advice about driving after surgery. This advice is inconsistent and many advise women not to drive for significant time periods. This study highlights the need for education and research about driving after surgery.

Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: a cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In many countries midwives act as the main providers of care for women throughout pregnancy, labour and birth. In our large public teaching hospital in Australia we restructured the way midwifery care is offered and introduced caseload midwifery for one third of women booked at the hospital. We then compared the costs and birth outcomes associated with caseload midwifery compared to the two existing models of care, standard hospital care and private obstetric care. METHODS: We undertook a cross sectional study examining the risk profile, birth outcomes and cost of care for women booked into one of the three available models of care in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia between July 1st 2009 December 31st 2010. To control for differences in population or case mix we described the outcomes for a cohort of low risk first time mothers known as the 'standard primipara'. RESULTS: Amongst the 1,379 women defined as 'standard primipara' there were significant differences in birth outcome. These first time 'low risk' mothers who received caseload care were more likely to have a spontaneous onset of labour and an unassisted vaginal birth 58.5% in MGP compared to 48.2% for Standard hospital care and 30.8% with Private obstetric care (p < 0.001). They were also significantly less likely to have an elective caesarean section 1.6% with MGP versus 5.3% with Standard care and 17.2% with private obstetric care (p < 0.001). From the public hospital perspective, over one financial year the average cost of care for the standard primipara in MGP was $3903.78 per woman. This was $1375.45 less per woman than those receiving Private obstetric care and $1590.91 less than Standard hospital care per woman (p < 0.001). Similar differences in cost were found in favour of MGP for all women in the study who received caseload care. CONCLUSIONS: Cost reduction appears to be achieved through reorganising the way care is delivered in the public hospital system with the introduction of Midwifery Group Practice or caseload care. The study also highlights the unexplained clinical variation that exists between the three models of care in Australia.

Caseload midwifery care versus standard maternity care for women of any risk: M@NGO, a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women at low risk of pregnancy complications benefit from continuity of midwifery care, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost outcomes of caseload midwifery care for women irrespective of risk factors. METHODS: In this unblinded, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial, pregnant women at two metropolitan teaching hospitals in Australia were randomly assigned to either caseload midwifery care or standard maternity care by a telephone-based computer randomisation service. Women aged 18 years and older were eligible if they were less than 24 weeks pregnant at the first booking visit. Those who booked with another care provider, had a multiple pregnancy, or planned to have an elective caesarean section were excluded. Women allocated to caseload care received antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care from a named caseload midwife (or back-up caseload midwife). Controls received standard care with rostered midwives in discrete wards or clinics. The participant and the clinician were not masked to assignment. The main primary outcome was the proportion of women who had a caesarean section. The other primary maternal outcomes were the proportions who had an instrumental or unassisted vaginal birth, and the proportion who had epidural analgesia during labour. Primary neonatal outcomes were Apgar scores, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal intensive care. We analysed all outcomes by intention to treat. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12609000349246. FINDINGS: Publicly insured women were screened at the participating hospitals between Dec 8, 2008, and May 31, 2011. 1748 pregnant women were randomly assigned, 871 to caseload and 877 to standard care. The proportion of caesarean sections did not differ between the groups (183 [21%] in the caseload group vs 204 [23%] in the standard care group; odds ratio [OR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·70-1·10; p=0·26). The proportion of women who had elective caesarean sections (before onset of labour) differed significantly between caseload and standard care (69 [8%] vs 94 [11%]; OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·52-0·99; p=0·05). Proportions of instrumental birth were similar (172 [20%] vs 171 [19%]; p=0·90), as were the proportions of unassisted vaginal births (487 [56%] vs 454 [52%]; p=0·08) and epidural use (314 [36%] vs 304 [35%]; p=0·54). Neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Total cost of care per woman was AUS$566·74 (95% 106·17-1027·30; p=0·02) less for caseload midwifery than for standard maternity care. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that for women of any risk, caseload midwifery is safe and cost effective. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

A randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery care: M@NGO (Midwives @ New Group practice Options).

BACKGROUND: Australia has an enviable record of safety for women in childbirth. There is nevertheless growing concern at the increasing level of intervention and consequent morbidity amongst childbearing women. Not only do interventions impact on the cost of services, they carry with them the potential for serious morbidities for mother and infant.Models of midwifery have proliferated in an attempt to offer women less fragmented hospital care. One of these models that is gaining widespread consumer, disciplinary and political support is caseload midwifery care. Caseload midwives manage the care of approximately 35-40 a year within a small Midwifery Group Practice (usually 4-6 midwives who plan their on call and leave within the Group Practice.) We propose to compare the outcomes and costs of caseload midwifery care compared to standard or routine hospital care through a randomised controlled trial. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-arm RCT design will be used. Women will be recruited from tertiary women's hospitals in Sydney and Brisbane, Australia. Women allocated to the caseload intervention will receive care from a named caseload midwife within a Midwifery Group Practice. Control women will be allocated to standard or routine hospital care. Women allocated to standard care will receive their care from hospital rostered midwives, public hospital obstetric care and community based general medical practitioner care. All midwives will collaborate with obstetricians and other health professionals as necessary according to the woman's needs. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected at recruitment, 36 weeks antenatally, six weeks and six months postpartum by web based or postal survey. With 750 women or more in each of the intervention and control arms the study is powered (based on 80% power; alpha 0.05) to detect a difference in caesarean section rates of 29.4 to 22.9%; instrumental birth rates from 11.0% to 6.8%; and rates of admission to neonatal intensive care of all neonates from 9.9% to 5.8% (requires 721 in each arm). The study is not powered to detect infant or maternal mortality, however all deaths will be reported. Other significant findings will be reported, including a comprehensive process and economic evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609000349246.

Mothers' views of caseload midwifery and the value of continuity of care at an Australian regional hospital.

OBJECTIVE: to evaluate mothers' satisfaction with a caseload-midwifery scheme, and whether this varied according to the extent of continuity of care provided. DESIGN: mothers' satisfaction with care was assessed using a postal survey, which was linked with their clinical outcomes data. SETTING: the Wollongong Hospital, the major public hospital in the Illawarra region, New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 174 women gave birth during the evaluation period of a pilot midwifery group practice (MGP) programme at the Wollongong Hospital between 5 July 2004 and 30 April 2005. This group included 87 primiparous and 87 multiparous women, all of whom met the Australian College of Midwives' criteria for low-risk pregnancies. INTERVENTION: the MGP was staffed by six midwives working in two groups of three. Each midwife took on a primary caseload of 40 women per year, and provided support as a secondary midwife to women cared for by colleagues. MEASUREMENTS: mothers' satisfaction with care and adjustment to motherhood were assessed with self-completed questionnaires. Survey responses were linked with clinical data, allowing examination of the relationship between maternal satisfaction and continuity of care. FINDINGS: the MGP achieved high levels of continuity of care, both objectively (based on birth records) and from mothers' perspectives. Overall, mothers' evaluations of their care were very positive. Women indicated that their relationships with their midwives were genuinely caring and a valued source of reassurance and comfort during pregnancy, labour and early motherhood. Although continuity of care did not predict summary scores for maternal satisfaction, it was related to some individual items on the satisfaction scales. Satisfaction with control and communication was predicted by parity and the level of intervention during labour and birth. KEY CONCLUSIONS: continuous care appears to facilitate the development of supportive relationships between women and their midwives. Women's perceptions about continuous and respectful treatment were related to objectively measured continuity of care. The qualitative data confirm the importance of less tangible benefits, such as the quality of relationships between women and their caregivers. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: the viability of caseload-midwifery-led care for low-risk pregnancies depends, in part, on the model's acceptability to consumers. This study demonstrated that the caseload model is associated with high levels of maternal satisfaction. Supportive relationships with midwives in a caseload scheme are highly valued by women.