Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 372–377 | Cite as

A Hospital-Based Doula Program and Childbirth Outcomes in an Urban, Multicultural Setting

  • Julie Mottl-SantiagoEmail author
  • Catherine Walker
  • Jean Ewan
  • Olivera Vragovic
  • Suzanne Winder
  • Phillip Stubblefield



The objective of this study is to determine whether there are differences in birth and breastfeeding outcomes for women who received labor support through a hospital-based doula program, compared with those who did not receive doula support in labor.


We conducted a retrospective program evaluation to compare differences in birth outcomes between births at 37 weeks or greater with doula support and births at 37 weeks or greater without doula support through the first seven years of a hospital-based doula support program. Log-binomial regression models were used to compare differences in cesarean delivery rates, epidural use, operative vaginal delivery, Apgar scores, breastfeeding intent and early breastfeeding initiation after controlling for demographic and medical risk factors. The propensity score was included as an additional covariate in our regression model to minimize issues of selection bias. Analyses were conducted for the whole cohort of 11,471 women and by parity and provider service in subgroup analyses. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was performed to detect differences in effects over time.


For the whole cohort, women with doula support had significantly higher rates of breastfeeding intent and early initiation. Subgroup analysis showed that having doula support was significantly related to: (a) higher rates of breastfeeding intent and early initiation rates for all women regardless of parity or provider with the exception of multiparous women with physician providers; (b) lower rates of cesarean deliveries for primiparous women with midwife providers.


A hospital-based doula support program is strongly related to improved breastfeeding outcomes in an urban, multicultural setting.


Doula Labor support Midwifery Breastfeeding Cesarean birth 



We acknowledge the support of Dr. Howard Cabral, PhD, MPH, Boston University School of Public Health, as consultant for the statistical analysis. Birth SistersSM is a registered service mark of Urban Midwife Associates and is used with permission. This study was unfunded.


  1. 1.
    Sosa, R., Kennell, J., Klaus, M., Robertson, S., & Urrutia, J. (1980). The effect of a supportive companion on perinatal problems, length of labor and mother-infant interaction. The New England Journal of Medicine, 303, 597–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klaus, M. H., Kennell, J. H., Robertson, S. S., & Sosa, R. (1986). Effects of social support during parturition on maternal and infant morbidity. BMJ, 293, 585–587.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kennell, J., Klaus, M., McGrath, S., Robertson, S., & Hinkley, C. (1991). Continuous emotional support during labor in a US hospital: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 265, 2197–2201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hodnett, E. D., & Osborn, R. W. (1989). Effects of continuous intrapartum professional support on childbirth outcomes. Research in Nursing & Health, 12, 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hofmeyr, G. J., Nikodem, V. C., Wolman, W. L., Chalmers, B. E., & Kramer, T. (1991). Companionship to modify the clinical birth environment: Effects on progress and perceptions of labour, and breastfeeding. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 98, 756–764.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Madi, B. C., Sandall, J., Bennett, R., & MacLeod, C. (1999). Effects of female relative support in labor: A randomized controlled trial. Birth, 26, 4–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hodnett, E. D., Gates, S., Hofmeyr, G. J., & Sakala, C. (2004). Continuous support for women during childbirth (Cochrane Review). Oxford, England: Cochrane Library, Update Software; 2004:issue 4.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langer, A., Campero, L., Garcia, C., & Reynoso, S. (1998). Effects of psychosocial support during labour and childbirth on breastfeeding, medical interventions, and mothers’ well-being in a Mexican public hospital: A randomised clinical trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 105, 1056–1063.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolman, W. L., Chalmers, B., Hofmeyr, J., & Nikodem, V. C. (1993). Postpartum depression and companionship in the clinical birth environment: A randomized, controlled study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 168, 1388–1393.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang, J., Bernasko, J. W., Lebovich, E., Fahs, M., & Hatch, M. C. (1996). Continuous labor support from labor attendant for primiparous women: A meta-analysis. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 88, 739–744.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scott, K. D., Berkowitz, G., & Klaus, M. (1999). A comparison of intermittent and continuous support during labor: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 180, 1054–1059.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosen, P. (2004). Supporting women in labor: Analysis of different types of caregivers. Journal of Midwifery and Womens Health, 49, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scott, K. D., Klaus, P. H., & Klaus, M. H. (1999). The obstetrical and postpartum benefits of continuous support during childbirth. Journal of Womens Health and Gender-based Medicine, 8, 1257–1264.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Massachusetts Department of Public Health. (2005) Massachusetts births. Available at: Retrieved May 14, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McNutt, L. A., Wu, C., Xue, X., & Hafner, J. P. (2003). Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology, 157, 940–943.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, J., & Yu, K. (1998). What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA, 280, 1690–1691.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saadeh, R., & Akré, J. (1996). Ten steps to successful breastfeeding: A summary of the rationale and scientific evidence. Birth, 23, 154–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merewood, A., & Philipp, B. L. (2001). Implementing change: Becoming baby-friendly in an inner city hospital. Birth, 28, 36–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Philipp, B. L., Merewood, A., Miller, L. W., Chawla, N., Murphy-Smith, M. M., Gomes, J. S., et al. (2001). Baby-friendly hospital initiative improves breastfeeding initiation rates in a US hospital setting. Pediatrics, 108, 677–681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Philipp, B. L., Malone, K. L., Cimo, S., & Merewood, A. (2003). Sustained breastfeeding rates at a US baby-friendly hospital. Pediatrics, 112, 234–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hodnett, E. D., Lowe, N. K., Hannah, M. E., Willan, A. R., Stevens, B., Weston, J. A., et al. (2002). Effectiveness of nurses as providers of birth labor support in North American hospitals: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288, 1373–1381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lederman, R. P., Lederman, E., Work, B. A., & McCann, D. S. (1978). The relationship of maternal anxiety, plasma catecholemines, and plasma cortisol to progress in labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 132, 495–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lederman, R. P., Lederman, E., Work, B. A., & McCann, D. S. (1985). Anxiety and epinephrine in multiparous women in labor: Relationship to duration of labor and fetal heart rate pattern. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 153, 870–877.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zuspan, F. P., Cibils, L. A., & Pose, S. V. (1962). Myometrial and cardiovascular responses to alterations in plasma epinephrine and norepinephrine. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 84, 841.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kelly, J. (1962). Effect of fear upon uterine motility. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 83, 576.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosenblatt, R. A., Dobie, S. A., Hart, G. L., Schneeweiss, R., Gould, D., Raine, T. R., et al. (1997). Interspecialty differences in the obstetric care of low-risk women. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 344–351.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    MacDorman, M. F., & Singh, G. K. (1998). Midwifery care, social and medical risk factors, and birth outcomes in the USA. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 52, 310–317.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pallotto, E. K., Collins, J. W., & David, R. J. (2000). Enigma of maternal race and infant birth weight: A population-based study of US-born Black and Caribbean-born Black women. American Journal of Epidemiology, 151, 1080–1085.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singh, G. K., & Yu, S. M. (1996). Adverse pregnancy outcomes: Differences between US- and foreign-born women in major US racial and ethnic groups. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 837–843.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Mottl-Santiago
    • 1
    Email author
  • Catherine Walker
    • 1
  • Jean Ewan
    • 1
  • Olivera Vragovic
    • 1
  • Suzanne Winder
    • 2
  • Phillip Stubblefield
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBoston University School of Medicine/Boston Medical CenterBostonUSA
  2. 2.Boston Medical CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations