Effect of multidisciplinary closed-loop care on pregnancy outcomes in anxiety and depression

Table 1 Comparison of delivery modes between groups, n (%)

Group	Cases	Vaginal delivery	Cesarean section
Control group	120	67 (55.8)	53 (44.2)
Intervention group	120	82 (68.3)	38 (31.7)
χ2 value		3.984
P value		0.046a

^aP < 0.05.

The cesarean section rate was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (31.7% vs 44.2%, P < 0.05). Accordingly, the vaginal delivery rate was higher in the intervention group (68.3% vs 55.8%, P < 0.05).

Table 2 Comparison of vaginal delivery outcomes between groups, n (%)

Group	Cases	Labor process		Normal rate	Perineal injury				Intact perineum rate
		Precipitate labor	Prolonged labor		I	II	III	Episiotomy
Control group	67	5	4	58 (86.5)	23	12	1	9	22 (32.8)
Intervention group	82	1	2	79 (96.3)	23	11	1	6	41 (50.0)
χ2 value				4.760					4.431
P value				0.029a					0.035a

^aP < 0.05.

Among vaginal deliveries, the intervention group had a higher rate of normal labor progression (96.3% vs 86.5%, P < 0.05) and a higher incidence of intact perineum (50.0% vs 32.8%, P < 0.05).

Table 3 Comparison of maternal outcomes between groups, n (%)

Group	Cases	Gestational hypertension	Gestational diabetes mellitus	Postpartum hemorrhage	Oligohydramnios	Polyhydramnios	Total
Control group	120	8	18	4	5	4	39 (32.5)
Intervention group	120	3	11	1	2	1	18 (15.0)
χ2 value							10.15
P value							0.0014a

^aP < 0.05.

The overall incidence of adverse maternal outcomes was significantly lower in the intervention group (15% vs 32.5%, P < 0.01).

Table 4 Comparison of neonatal outcomes between groups, n (%)

Group	Cases	Macrosomia	Malformation	Asphyxia	Preterm infant	Total
Control group	120	6	1	4	8	19 (15.8)
Intervention group	120	3	1	2	2	8 (6.7)
χ2 value						5.05
P value						0.025a

^aP < 0.05.

The overall incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes was significantly lower in the intervention group (6.7% vs 15.8%, P < 0.05).

Table 5 Comparison of postpartum 42-day pelvic floor muscle screening scores (mean values)

Group	Pre-resting phase	Fast-twitch (type II) phase	Slow-twitch (type I) phase	Post-resting phase
Control group	59	70	67	63
Intervention group	63	73	72	66
t value	4.13	2.32	3.87	3.10
P value	< 0.001a	0.021a	< 0.001a	0.002a

^aP < 0.05.

The intervention group demonstrated significantly better pelvic floor muscle function, based on both dynamic and resting electromyographic parameters, compared to the control group (all P < 0.05).