Objective Our aim was to investigate if antenatal midwifery care was associated with lower odds of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth, preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW) compared with general practitioner (GP) or obstetrician (OB) models of care for women of low socioeconomic position. Setting This population-level, retrospective cohort study used province-wide maternity, medical billing and demographic data from British Columbia, Canada. Participants Our study included 57 872 pregnant women, with low socioeconomic position, who: were residents of British Columbia, Canada, carried a singleton fetus, had low to moderate medical/obstetric risk, delivered between 2005 and 2012 and received medical insurance premium assistance. Primary and secondary outcome measures We report rates, adjusted ORs (aOR), and 95% CIs for the primary outcome, SGA birth (<the 10th percentile), and secondary outcomes, PTB (<37 weeks’ completed gestation) and LBW (<2500 g). Results Our sample included 4705 midwifery patients, 45 114 GP patients and 8053 OB patients. Odds of SGA birth were reduced for patients receiving antenatal midwifery versus GP (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.82) or OB care (aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.69). Odds of PTB were lower for antenatal midwifery versus GP (aOR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.86) or OB patients (aOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.62). Odds of LBW were reduced for midwifery versus GP (aOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82) or OB patients (aOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54). Conclusion Antenatal midwifery care in British Columbia, Canada, was associated with lower odds of SGA birth, PTB and LBW, for women of low socioeconomic position, compared with physician models of care. Results support the development of policy to ensure antenatal midwifery care is available and accessible for women of low socioeconomic position. Future research is needed to determine the underlying mechanisms linking midwifery care to better birth outcomes for women of low socioeconomic position.

This scoping review investigates if, over the last 25 years in high resource countries, midwives' patients of low socioeconomic position (SEP) were at more or less risk of adverse infant birth outcomes compared to physicians' patients. Reviewers identified 917 records in a search of 12 databases, grey literature, and citation lists. Thirty-one full documents were assessed and nine studies met inclusion criteria. Eight studies were assessed as moderate in quality; one study was given a weak rating. Of the moderate quality studies, the majority found no statistical difference in outcomes according to model of care for preterm birth, low or very low birth weight, or NICU admission. No study reported a statistically significant difference for small for gestational age birth (2 studies), or mean or low Apgar score (4 studies). However, one study found a reduced risk of preterm birth (AOR=0.70, p<0.01), and heavier mean infant birth weight (3325 g vs. 3282 g, p<0.01) for midwifery patients. Another study reported lower risk of low (RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.73) and very low birthweight (RR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.85) for midwifery care. And, a third study reported a decrease in stays (1-3 days) in NICU (Adjusted Risk Difference=-1.8, 95% CI: -3.9, 0.2) for midwifery patients, though no overall difference in NICU admission of any duration. Other studies reported significant differences favoring midwifery care for mean birth weight (3598 g vs. 3407.3 g, p<0.05; 3233 g vs. 3089 g, p<0.05; 2 studies) and very low birth weight (OR=0.35, 95% CI:0.1, 0.9), for sub-groups within the larger study populations. This scoping review documented heterogeneity in study designs and analytical methods, inconsistent findings, moderate methodological quality, and lack of currency. There is a need for new studies to definitively establish if and how a midwifery-led model of care influences birth outcomes for women of low SEP.

Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) provide women with accommodation close to a health facility to enable timely access to skilled care at birth. We examined whether MWH use and availability compared with non-use/unavailability were associated with facility birth, birth with a skilled health professional, attendance at postnatal visit(s) and/or improved maternal and newborn health, in LMICs. We included (non-)randomized controlled, interrupted time series, controlled before–after, cohort and case–control studies published since 1990. Thirteen databases were searched with no language restrictions. Included studies (1991–2020) were assessed as either moderate (n = 9) or weak (n = 10) on individual quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Quality was most frequently compromised by selection bias, confounding and blinding. Only moderate quality studies were analyzed; no studies examining maternal morbidity/mortality met this criterion. MWH users had less relative risk (RR) of perinatal mortality [RR 0.65, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.48, 0.87] (3 studies) and low birthweight (RR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.59) (2 studies) compared with non-users. There were no significant differences between MWH use and non-use for stillbirth (RR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.47, 1.18) (3 studies) or neonatal mortality (RR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.25, 1.02) (2 studies). Single study results demonstrated higher adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for facility birth (aOR 5.8, 95% CI: 2.6, 13.0) and attendance at all recommended postnatal visits within 6 weeks of birth (aOR 1.99, 95% CI: 1.30, 3.07) for MWH users vs. non-users. The presence vs. absence of an MWH was associated with a 19% increase in facility birth (aOR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.29). The presence vs. absence of a hospital-affiliated MWH predicted a 47% lower perinatal mortality rate (P < 0.01), but at a healthcare centre-level a 13 higher perinatal mortality rate (P < 0.01). Currently, there remains a lack of robust evidence supporting MWH effectiveness. We outline a six-point strategy for strengthening the evidence base.

Introduction Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) link pregnant women to skilled birth attendance at health facilities. Research suggests that some MWH-facility birth interventions are more success at meeting the needs and expectations of their intended users than others. We aimed to develop theory regarding what resources work to support uptake and scale-up of MHW-facility birth interventions, how, for whom, in what contexts and why. Methods A four-step realist review was conducted which included development of an initial programme theory; searches for evidence; selection, appraisal and extraction of data; and analysis and data synthesis. Results A programme theory was developed from 106 secondary sources and 12 primary interviews with MWH implementers. The theory demonstrated that uptake and scale-up of the MWH-facility birth intervention depends on complex interactions between three adopter groups: health system stakeholders, community gatekeepers and pregnant women and their families. It describes relationships between 19 contexts, 11 mechanisms and 31 outcomes accross nine context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) which were grouped into 3 themes: (1) Engaging stakeholders to develop, integrate, and sustain MWH-facility birth interventions, (2) Promoting and enabling MWH-facility birth utilisation and (3) Creating positive and memorable MWH-facility birth user experiences. Belief, trust, empowerment, health literacy and perceptions of safety, comfort and dignity were mechanisms that supported diffusion and adoption of the intervention within communities and health systems. Examples of resources provided by implementers to trigger mechanisms associated with each CMOC were identified. Conclusions Implementers of MWHs cannot merely assume that communities will collectively value an MWH-facility birth experience over delivery at home. We posit that MWH-facility birth interventions become vulnerable to under-utilisation when implementers fail to: (1) remove barriers that hinder women’s access to MWH and (2) ensure that conditions and interactions experienced within the MWH and its affiliated health facility support women to feel treated with compassion, dignity and respect. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020173595.

Some observational studies have shown improved birth outcomes for women of low socioeconomic position (SEP) receiving antenatal midwifery versus physician care. To understand for whom and under what circumstances midwifery care is associated with better birth outcomes we examined whether psychosocial risk including substance use, mental illness, social assistance, residence in a neighbourhood of low/moderate SEP, and teen maternal age modified the association between model of care (midwifery versus physician) and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) or preterm birth (PTB) for women of low SEP. For this retrospective cohort study, maternity data from the British Columbia Perinatal Data Registry were linked with Medical Services Plan billing data. We report adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for SGA birth (< the 10th percentile) and PTB (< 37 weeks’ completed gestation). For tests of interaction between antenatal models of care and psychosocial risk, p-values < 0.10 were considered statistically significant. Women were eligible for inclusion if they were residents of British Columbia, Canada, carried a singleton fetus, had low to moderate medical/obstetric risk, birthed between April 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2012, and received a health insurance subsidy (n = 33,937). Midwifery versus obstetrician patients had lower odds of PTB. The difference was 31% larger among substance users (aOR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.11–0.54) compared to non-substance users (aOR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.45–0.68). Additionally, there was a 34% statistically significant absolute difference in odds of PTB for midwifery versus obstetrician patients with both mental illness and substance use (aOR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.06–0.55) compared to women with neither mental illness nor substance use (aOR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.41–.66). Results demonstrated a consistent association between midwifery versus physician care and lower odds of SGA, yet effects were not statistically significantly different for women with higher or lower psychosocial risk. Among low SEP women in British Columbia, Canada, antenatal midwifery compared to obstetrician care was associated with reduced odds of PTB. Odds were lower among women with substance use, and mental illness and substance use, than among women without these risk factors.

Introduction
Studies have consistently demonstrated a gradient between median neighbourhood income and child developmental outcomes. By investigating statistical outliers—neighbourhoods with children exhibiting less or more developmental vulnerability than that predicted by median neighbourhood income—there is an opportunity to identify other neighbourhood characteristics that may be enhancing or impeding early childhood development. Objective
Testing a variety of neighbourhood factors, including immigrant or ethnic concentration and characteristics of structural disadvantage (proportion of social assistance recipients, homes in need of major repair, residents with high school education only, lone parent families, and residents moving in the last year) we sought to identify factors associated with more or less developmental vulnerability than that predicted by median neighbourhood income, for young children. Methods
For this cross-sectional study we used validated Early Development Instrument (EDI) data (2003-2013) linked to demographic and socioeconomic Census and Tax Filer data for 98.3% of Canadian neighbourhoods (n=2,023). The purpose of the instrument is to report, at a population-level, children’s school readiness. Children’s developmental vulnerability was assessed in five domains (physical health and well-being, emotional maturity, social competence, language and cognitive development, and communication and general knowledge) in relation to the 10th percentile from a national normative sample. Levels of children’s neighbourhood vulnerability were determined per domain, as percent of children vulnerable at a given domain. Neighbourhoods were grouped into three cohorts, those having lower than predicted, as predicted, or higher than predicted children’s vulnerability according to neighbourhood median income. Using multivariable binary logistic regression we modelled the association between select neighbourhood characteristics and neighbourhoods with lower or higher than predicted vulnerability per domain, compared to neighbourhoods with predicted vulnerability. This allowed us to determine neighbourhood characteristics associated with better or worse child developmental outcomes, at a neighbourhood-level, than that predicted by income. Results
In neighbourhoods with less child developmental vulnerability than that predicted by income, high or low immigrant concentration and ethnic homogeneity was associated with less vulnerability in physical (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.66, 95% CI: 1.43, 1.94), social (aOR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.51), and communication domains (aOR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.47) compared to neighbourhoods with vulnerability concordant with income. Neighbourhood ethnic homogeneity was consistently associated with less developmental vulnerability than predicted by income across all developmental domains. Neighbourhood-level structural disadvantage was strongly associated with child developmental vulnerability beyond that predicted by median neighbourhood income. Conclusion
Canadian neighbourhoods demonstrating less child developmental vulnerability than that predicted by income have greater ethnic and ethnic-immigrant homogeneity than neighbourhoods with child developmental vulnerability concordant with income. Neighbourhood social cohesion and cultural identity may be contributing factors. Neighbourhood structural disadvantage is associated with poorer early childhood development, over and above that predicted by neighbourhood income. Neighbourhood-level policy and programming should address income and non-income related barriers to healthy child development.