Table 2 Summary of included studies’ features and results
From: A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of maternity models of care
Authors (publication year) | Critical appraisal score (rating) | Country | MMC evaluated | Population | Model choice | Perspective | Time horizon | Primary health outcome | Main conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kozhimannil et al. (2016) [34] | 8/11 (Fair) | United States | Women cared for by midwife vs women cared for by family physicians | Low risk pregnancies | Decision tree | Payer | Antepartum up to birth | Preterm birth (<37wks) averted | Midwife-led is cost-saving |
Koto et al. (2019) [33] | 8/11 (Fair) | Canada | Standard care with doula support vs standard care | Low risk pregnancies | Decision tree | Payer | Antepartum, intrapartum, and up to six weeks postpartum | NICU admission avoided | Additional doula support is cost-effective |
Attanasio et al. (2020) [32] | 5.5/11 (Poor) | United States | Midwife-led care vs obstetrician led care | Low risk pregnancies | Decision tree | Payer | Antepartum up to birth | Obstetric procedures during child- birth | Midwife-led is cost-saving |