Alternative versus conventional institutional settings for birth

An implementation analysis of a quality improvement project to reduce cesarean section in Brazilian private hospitals

BACKGROUND

Brazil has one of the highest prevalence of cesarean sections in the world. The private health system is responsible for carrying out most of these surgical procedures. A quality improvement project called Adequate Childbirth Project ("Projeto Parto Adequado"- PPA) was developed to identify models of care for labor and childbirth, which place value on vaginal birth and reduce the frequency of cesarean sections without a clinical indication. This research aims to evaluate the implementation of PPA in private hospitals in Brazil.

METHOD

Evaluative hospital-based survey, carried out in 2017, in 12 private hospitals, including 4,322 women. We used a Bayesian network strategy to develop a theoretical model for implementation analysis. We estimated and compared the degree of implementation of two major driving components of PPA-"Participation of women" and "Reorganization of care" - among the 12 hospitals and according to type of hospital (belonging to a health insurance company or not). To assess whether the degree of implementation was correlated with the rate of vaginal birth data we used the Bayesian Network and compared the difference between the group "Exposed to the PPA model of care" and the group "Standard of care model".

RESULTS

PPA had a low degree of implementation in both components "Reorganization of Care" (0.17 - 0.32) and "Participation of Women" (0.21 - 0.34). The combined implementation score was 0.39-0.64 and was higher in hospitals that belonged to a health insurance company. The vaginal birth rate was higher in hospitals with a higher degree of implementation of PPA.

CONCLUSION

The degree of implementation of PPA was low, which reflects the difficulties in changing childbirth care practices. Nevertheless, PPA increased vaginal birth rates in private hospitals with higher implementation scores. PPA is an ongoing quality improvement project and these results demonstrate the need for changes in the involvement of women and the care offered by the provider.

Healing Architecture in Birthing Rooms: A Scoping Review

AIM

The purpose of this scoping review is to map the knowledge about the multisensory birthing room regarding the birth experience and birth outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The concept of multisensory birthing rooms is relatively novel, making it relevant to explore its impact.

METHODS

Five databases were searched. The search was limited to articles in English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. There were no time limitations. Fourteen relevant articles were identified providing knowledge about multisensory birthing rooms.

RESULTS

Eight articles focused on birth experience, six articles focused on birth outcome, and one on the organization of the maternity care. Seven of the studies identified that sensory birthing rooms have a positive impact on the birth experience and one qualitative study could not demonstrate a better overall birth experience. Five articles described an improvement for selected birth outcomes. On the other hand, a randomized controlled trial study could not demonstrate an effect on either the use of oxytocin or birth outcomes such as pain and cesarean section. The definition and description of the concept weaken the existing studies scientifically.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review revealed that multisensory birthing rooms have many definitions and variations in the content of the sensory exposure; therefore, it is difficult to standardize and evaluate the effect of its use. There is limited knowledge concerning the multisensory birthing room and its impact on the birth experience and the birth outcome. Multisensory birthing rooms may have a positive impact on the birth experience. Whereas there are conflicting results regarding birth outcomes.

Giving Birth With a Midwife in Attendance: Associations of Race and Insurance Status With Continuity of Midwifery Care in Philadelphia

INTRODUCTION

From 2013 to 2019, Black women comprised 73% of pregnancy-related deaths in Philadelphia. There is currently a dearth of research on the continuity of midwifery care from initiation of prenatal care through birth in relation to characteristics such as race/ethnicity and income. The aim of this study was to investigate whether race/ethnicity and insurance status were associated with the likelihood of a pregnant person who begins prenatal care with a midwife to remain in midwifery care for birth attendance.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of a diverse population of pregnant patients who gave birth in a large tertiary care hospital and had their first prenatal visit with a certified nurse-midwife (CNM) between June 2, 2009, and June 30, 2020 (n = 5121). We used multivariable, log-binomial regression models to calculate risk ratios of transferring to physician care (vs remaining within CNM care), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, prepregnancy body mass index, insurance type, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

After adjusting for pregnancy-related risk factors, non-Hispanic Black patients (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.24) and publicly insured patients (aRR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22) were at higher risk of being transferred to physician care compared with non-Hispanic White and privately insured patients. Secondary analysis revealed that non-Hispanic Black patients had higher risk of transferring and having an operative birth (aRR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.18-1.55), whereas publicly insured patients were at higher risk of being transferred for reasons other than operative births (aRR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.18-1.54).

DISCUSSION

These findings indicate that Black and publicly insured patients were more likely than White and privately insured patients to transfer to physician care even after adjustment for comorbid conditions. Thus, further research is needed to identify the factors that contribute to racial and economic disparity in continuity of midwifery care.

Birth environment interventions and outcomes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The physical environments in which women give birth can contribute positively to meeting both physiologic and psychosocial needs during labor. Most studies on the labor and delivery processes have focused on mitigating pain and providing psychological support. Fewer have explored the influence of the physical birth environment. In this study, we performed a scoping review to compile and examine qualitative and quantitative studies related to the characteristics of physical birth environments and their effects on labor outcomes.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, CINHAL, Cochrane, Web of Science, and MEDLINE databases from inception to May 2022. A total of 13 studies met the criteria for inclusion in our review. Two reviewers screened the titles and full-text articles and extracted data from the included studies. We used summary statistics and narrative summaries to describe the study characteristics, intervention implementation guidelines, intervention selection and tailoring rationale, and intervention effects.

RESULTS

In previous research, several elements of birth environments have been shown to provide physical and psychological support to birthing people and to improve outcomes related to the experience of care and pain management. We identified five main themes in the included studies: (1) "hominess;" (2) whether spaces are comfortable for activity; (3) demedicalization of the birth environment; (4) accommodations for birth partners; and (5) providing women with a sense of control over their birth environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Birth environments should be designed to promote positive birthing experiences, both physiologically and psychologically. Facilities and those who manage them can improve the experiences and outcomes of service users by modifying or designing spaces that are "homey," comfortable for activity, demedicalized, and include natural elements. In addition, policies that allow the birthing person to control her own environment are key to promoting positive outcomes and satisfaction with the birth experience.

The first alongside midwifery unit in Spain: A retrospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Midwife-led units have been shown to be safer and reduce interventions for women at low risk of complications at birth. In 2017, the first alongside birth center was opened in Spain. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for women with uncomplicated pregnancies giving birth in the Midwife-led unit (MLU) and in the Obstetric unit (OU) of the same hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study comparing birth outcomes between low-risk women, depending on their planned place of birth. Data were analyzed with an intention-to-treat approach for women that gave birth between January 2018 and December 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 878 women were included in the study, 255 women chose to give birth in the MLU and 623 in the OU. Findings showed that women in the MLU were more likely to have a vaginal birth (91.4%) than in the OU (83.8%) (aOR 2.98 [95%CI 1.62-5.47]), less likely to have an instrumental delivery, 3.9% versus 11.2% (0.25 [0.11-0.55]), to use epidural analgesia, 19.6% versus 77.9% (0.15 [0.04-0.17]) and to have an episiotomy, 7.4% versus 15.4% (0.27 [0.14-0.53]). There were no differences in rates of postpartum hemorrhage, retained placenta, or adverse neonatal outcomes. Intrapartum and postpartum transfer rates from the MLU to the OU were 21.1% and 2.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The high rate of obstetric interventions in Spain could be reduced by implementing midwife-led units across the whole system, without an increase in maternal or neonatal complications.

Implementing a new birthing room design: a qualitative study with a care provider perspective

BACKGROUND

Research shows that interventions to protect the sensitive physiological process of birth by improving the birthing room design may positively affect perinatal outcomes. It is, however, crucial to understand the mechanisms and contextual elements that influence the outcomes of such complex interventions. Hence, we aimed to explore care providers' experiences of the implementation of a new hospital birthing room designed to be more supportive of women's birth physiology.

METHODS

This qualitative study reports on the implementation of the new birthing room, which was evaluated in the Room4Birth randomised controlled trial in Sweden. Individual interviews were undertaken with care providers, including assistant nurses, midwives, obstetricians, and managers (n = 21). A content analysis of interview data was conducted and mapped into the three domains of the Normalisation Process Theory coding manual: implementation context, mechanism, and outcome.

RESULTS

The implementation of the new room challenged the prevailing biomedical paradigm within the labour ward context and raised the care providers' awareness about the complex interplay between birth physiology and the environment. This awareness had the potential to encourage care providers to be more emotionally present, rather than to focus on monitoring practices. The new room also evoked a sense of insecurity due to its unfamiliar design, which acted as a barrier to integrating the room as a well-functioning part of everyday care practice.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the disparity that existed between what care providers considered valuable for women during childbirth and their own requirements from the built environment based on their professional responsibilities. This identified disparity emphasises the importance of hospital birthing rooms (i) supporting women's emotions and birth physiology and (ii) being standardised to meet care providers' requirements for a functional work environment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03948815, 14/05/2019.

Planned hospital birth compared with planned home birth for pregnant women at low risk of complications

BACKGROUND

Observational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and morbidity but increases the frequency of interventions and complications. Euro-Peristat (part of the European Union's Health Monitoring Programme) has raised concerns about iatrogenic effects of obstetric interventions, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concern that the increasing medicalisation of childbirth tends to undermine women's own capability to give birth and negatively impacts their childbirth experience. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1998, and previously updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of planned hospital birth with planned home birth attended by a midwife or others with midwifery skills and backed up by a modern hospital system in case a transfer to hospital should turn out to be necessary. The primary focus is on women with an uncomplicated pregnancy and low risk of medical intervention during birth.  SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 July 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. Cluster-randomised trials, quasi-randomised trials, and trials published only as an abstract were also eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked the data for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial involving 11 participants. This was a small feasibility study to show that well-informed women - contrary to common beliefs - were prepared to be randomised. This update did not identify any additional studies for inclusion, but excluded one study that had been awaiting assessment. The included study was at high risk of bias for three out of seven risk of bias domains. The trial did not report on five of the seven primary outcomes, and reported zero events for one primary outcome (caesarean section), and non-zero events for the remaining primary outcome (baby not breastfed). Maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (non-malformed), Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit, and maternal satisfaction were not reported. The overall certainty of the evidence for the two reported primary outcomes was very low according to our GRADE assessment (downgraded two levels for high overall risk of bias (due to high risk of bias arising from lack of blinding, high risk of selective reporting and lack of ability to check for publication bias) and two levels for very serious imprecision (single study with few events)).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that for selected, low-risk pregnant women, the evidence from randomised trials to support that planned hospital birth reduces maternal or perinatal mortality, morbidity, or any other critical outcome is uncertain. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be just as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new RCTs. As women and healthcare practitioners may be aware of evidence from observational studies, and as the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Confederation of Midwives collaboratively conclude that there is strong evidence that out-of-hospital birth supported by a registered midwife is safe, equipoise may no longer exist, and randomised trials may now thus be considered unethical or hardly feasible.

Impact of Birthing Room Design on Maternal Childbirth Experience: Results From the Room4Birth Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of the birthing room design on nulliparous women's childbirth experience up to 1 year after birth.

BACKGROUND

Although it is known that the birth environment can support or hinder birth processes, the impact of the birthing room design on maternal childbirth experience over time is insufficiently studied.

METHODS

The Room4Birth randomized controlled trial was conducted at a labor ward in Sweden. Nulliparous women in active stage of spontaneous labor were randomized (n = 406) to either a regular birthing room (n = 202) or a new birthing room designed with more person-centered considerations (n = 204). Childbirth experiences were measured 2 hr, 3 months, and 12 months after birth by using a Visual Analogue Scale of Overall Childbirth Experience (VAS-OCE), the Fear of Birth Scale (FOBS), and the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ2).

RESULTS

Women randomized to the new room had a more positive childbirth experience reported on the VAS-OCE 3 months (p = .002) and 12 months (p = .021) after birth compared to women randomized to a regular room. Women in the new room also scored higher in the total CEQ2 score (p = .039) and within the CEQ2 subdomain own capacity after 3 months (p = .028). The remaining CEQ2 domains and the FOBS scores did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings show that a birthing room offering more possibilities to change features and functions in the room according to personal needs and requirements, positively affects the childbirth experience of nulliparous women 3 and 12 months after they have given birth.

Vaginal Birth at Term - Part 1. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020)

Purpose This guideline aims to summarize the current state of knowledge about vaginal birth at term. The guideline focuses on definitions of the physiological stages of labor as well as differentiating between various pathological developments and conditions. It also assesses the need for intervention and the options to avoid interventions. This first part presents recommendations and statements about patient information and counselling, general patient care, monitoring of patients, pain management and quality control measures for vaginal birth. Methods The German recommendations largely reproduce the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CG 190 guideline "Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies". Other international guidelines were also consulted in specific cases when compiling this guideline. In addition, a systematic search and analysis of the literature was carried out using PICO questions, if this was considered necessary, and other systematic reviews and individual studies were taken into account. For easier comprehension, the assessment tools of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) were used to evaluate the quality of the additionally consulted studies. Otherwise, the GRADE system was used for the NICE guideline and the evidence reports of the IQWiG were used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Recommendations Recommendations and statements were formulated based on identified evidence and/or a structured consensus.

A Broad Study to Develop Maternity Units Design Knowledge Combining Spatial Analysis and Mothers' and Midwives' Perception of the Birth Environment

OBJECTIVES

This article investigates how the physical birth environment is perceived by the users (women and midwives) in different settings, a midwife-led unit and an obstetric-led unit, placed in Italy.

BACKGROUND

In the field of birth architecture research, there is a gap in the description of the spatial and physical characteristics of birth environments that impact users' health, specifically for what concerns the perception by women.

METHODS

The study focuses on multi-centered mixed methods design, employing both quantitative and qualitative research methods (questionnaire, spatial analysis) and covering different disciplines (architecture, environmental psychology, and midwifery).

RESULTS

The results revealed significant differences between the two settings and some associations between perceived and spatial data concerning: calm atmosphere, greater intimacy, spacious birth room, clarity of service points, clarity in finding midwives, sufficient space for labor, noise, privacy, and the birth room adaptability.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings confirm the importance of the spatial layout and indicate documented knowledge as an input to consider when designing birth spaces in order to promote user well-being.

Factors influencing birth setting decision making in the United States: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

The United States has the highest perinatal morbidity and mortality (M&M) rates among all high-resource countries in the world. Birth settings (birth center, home, or hospital) influence clinical outcomes, experience of care, and health care costs. Increasing use of low-intervention birth settings can reduce perinatal M&M. This integrative review evaluated factors influencing birth setting decision making among women and birthing people in the United States.

METHODS

A search strategy was implemented within the CINAHL, PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided the review, and the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice model was used to evaluate methodological quality and appraisal of the evidence. The Whittemore and Knafl integrative review framework informed the extraction and analysis of the data and generation of findings.

RESULTS

We identified 23 articles that met inclusion criteria. Four analytical themes were generated that described factors that influence birth setting decision making in the United States: "Birth Setting Safety vs. Risk," "Influence of Media, Family, and Friends on Birth Setting Awareness," "Presence or Absence of Choice and Control," and "Access to Options."

DISCUSSION

Supporting women and birthing people to make informed decisions by providing information about birth setting options and variations in models of care by birth setting is a critical patient-centered strategy to ensure equitable access to low-intervention birth settings. Policies that expand affordable health insurance to cover midwifery care in all birth settings are needed to enable people to make informed choices about birth location that align with their values, individual pregnancy characteristics, and preferences.

Analysis of the Concept of Obstetric Violence: Scoping Review Protocol

(1) Background: Obstetric violence has been highlighted in the political and social agenda of several countries. Efforts have been made to create policies to humanize obstetric care, guarantee the rights of pregnant women and respond to this form of violence. The lack of consensus on the appropriate terminology to name and define the behaviours that constitute obstetric violence, hinders this process. (2) Objective: To analyse the concept of obstetric violence related to assistance to women during labor. (3) Methodology: Scoping review protocol, according to the Joanna Briggs Institute method. The search will be performed on EBSCOhost Research Platform, PubMed, Virtual Health Library and SciVerse Scopus databases. The Open Scientific Repository of Portugal will also be considered. All types of studies, published in the last 10 years, in English, Spanish and Portuguese languages, constitute inclusion criteria. Studies of women experiencing labor, in a hospital setting, that address the dimensions of the concept of obstetric violence will be reviewed. (4) Discussion: The results will serve as a basis for identifying the appropriate terminology of the concept of obstetric violence, in order to direct future research with interest in the problem.

Perception of obstetric violence in a sample of Spanish health sciences students: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Obstetric violence is a problem that has grown worldwide, and a particularly worrying one in Spain. Such violence has repercussions for women, and for the professionals who cause them. Preventing this problem seems fundamental.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated how health sciences students perceived obstetric violence.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study conducted between October 2019 and November 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

A sample of Spanish health sciences students studying degrees of nursing, medicine, midwifery, and psychology.

METHODS

A validated questionnaire was used: Perception of Obstetric Violence in Students (PercOV-S). Socio-demographic and control variables were included. A descriptive and comparative multivariate analysis was performed with the obtained data.

RESULTS

540 questionnaires were completed with an overall mean score of 3.83 points (SD ± 0.63), with 2.83 points (SD ± 0.91) on the protocolised-visible dimension and 4.15 points (SD ± 0.67) on the non-protocolised-invisible obstetric violence dimension. Statistically significant differences were obtained for degree studied (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001), experience (p < 0.001), ethnic group (p < 0.001), the obstetric violence concept (p < 0.001) and academic year (p < 0.005). There were three significant multivariate models for the questionnaire's overall score and dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Health sciences students perceived obstetric violence mainly as non-protocolised aspects while attending women. Degree studied and academic year might be related to perceived obstetric violence.

Timely initiation of breastfeeding and its associated factors among Turkish mothers: a mixed model research

Exploring the determinants of timely initiation of breastfeeding is necessary for planning efficient breastfeeding promotion programmes. The present study aimed to investigate the frequency and related factors of timely initiation of breastfeeding among Turkish mothers. This study was a cross-sectional, descriptive, mixed model study, which was carried out on mothers with healthy children up to 3 years old who presented to the paediatric clinic between 01 November 2019 and 30 December 2019 in a university hospital. Of the 307 participant mothers, the mean age was 28.3 ± 3.9 years. The frequency of timely initiation of breastfeeding was 70.7%. Significant associations were found between timely initiation of breastfeeding status and residence, type of delivery, type of anaesthesia, birth weight of babies, counselling on timely initiation of breastfeeding during antenatal care and consultant medical staff. In order to increase the breastfeeding rate in the first hour, spontaneous vaginal delivery should be supported and spinal/epidural anaesthesia method should be preferred in cases where caesarean delivery is indicated. Other important steps to increase the ratio of timely initiation of breastfeeding are strengthening breastfeeding counselling services and the midwifery system.

Obstetrician involvement in planned midwife-led births: a cohort study in an obstetric department of a University Hospital in Switzerland

Background

Healthy women with low risk singleton pregnancies are offered a midwife-led birth model at our department. Exclusion criteria for midwife-led births include a range of abnormalities in medical history and during the course of pregnancy. In case of complications before, during or after labor and birth, an obstetrician is involved. The purpose of this study was 1) to evaluate the frequency of and reasons for secondary obstetrician involvement in planned midwife-led births and 2) to assess the maternal and neonatal outcome.

Methods

We analyzed a cohort of planned midwife-led births during a 14 years period (2006-2019). Evaluation included a comparison between midwife-led births with or without secondary obstetrician involvement, regarding maternal characteristics, birth mode, and maternal and neonatal outcome. Statistical analysis was performed by unpaired t-tests and Chi-square tests.

Results

In total, there were 532 intended midwife-led births between 2006 and 2019 (2.6% of all births during this time-period at the department). Among these, 302 (57%) women had spontaneous vaginal births as midwife-led births. In the remaining 230 (43%) births, obstetricians were involved: 62% of women with obstetrician involvement had spontaneous vaginal births, 25% instrumental vaginal births and 13% caesarean sections. Overall, the caesarean section rate was 5.6% in the whole cohort of women with intended midwife-led births. Reasons for obstetrician involvement primarily included necessity for labor induction, abnormal fetal heart rate monitoring, thick meconium-stained amniotic fluid, prolonged first or second stage of labor, desire for epidural analgesia, obstetrical anal sphincter injuries, retention of placenta and postpartum hemorrhage. There was a significantly higher rate of primiparous women in the group with obstetrician involvement. Arterial umbilical cord pH < 7.10 occurred significantly more often in the group with obstetrician involvement, while 5′ Apgar score < 7 did not differ significantly. The overall transfer rate of newborns to neonatal intensive care unit was low (1.3%).

Conclusion

A midwife-led birth in our setting is a safe alternative to a primarily obstetrician-led birth, provided that selection criteria are being followed and prompt obstetrician involvement is available in case of abnormal course of labor and birth or postpartum complications.

Modelling the cost of place of birth: a pathway analysis

BACKGROUND

In New South Wales (NSW), Australia there are three settings available for women at low risk of complications to give birth: home, birth centre and hospital. Between 2000 and 2012, 93.6% of babies were planned to be born in hospital, 6.0% in a birth centre and 0.4% at home. Availability of alternative birth settings is limited and the cost of providing birth at home or in a birth centre from the perspective of the health system is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to model the cost of the trajectories of women who planned to give birth at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital from the public sector perspective.

METHODS

This was a population-based study using linked datasets from NSW, Australia. Women included met the following selection criteria: 37-41 completed weeks of pregnancy, spontaneous onset of labour, and singleton pregnancy at low risk of complications. We used a decision tree framework to depict the trajectories of these women and Australian Refined-Diagnosis Related Groups (AR-DRGs) were applied to each trajectory to estimate the cost of birth. A scenario analysis was undertaken to model the cost for 30 000 women in one year.

FINDINGS

496 387 women were included in the dataset. Twelve potential outcome pathways were identified and each pathway was costed using AR-DRGs. An overall cost was also calculated by place of birth: $AUD4802 for homebirth, $AUD4979 for a birth centre birth and $AUD5463 for a hospital birth.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study provides some clarity into the financial saving of offering more options to women seeking an alternative to giving birth in hospital. Given the relatively lower rates of complex intervention and neonatal outcomes associated with women at low risk of complications, we can assume the cost of providing them with homebirth and birth centre options could be cost-effective.

Demanding and rewarding: Midwives experiences of starting a continuity of care project in rural Sweden

INTRODUCTION

The closure of a local labor ward enhanced the possibility to initiate a continuity of midwifery care model project. Continuity models of midwifery care are a cornerstone in midwifery and women-centered care, mainly accessible in metropolitan areas. Australian studies have found continuity of midwifery care to work well in rural areas. The aim of this study is to describe midwives' experiences of developing and working in a continuity of midwifery model of care in a rural setting in Sweden.

METHODS

We used a qualitative longitudinal interview with a participatory action research approach. The project was subjected to changes over time to allow the midwives to provide the best care options and to develop a model suitable for a rural area in northern Sweden.

RESULTS

The overarching theme, 'Developing a continuity model of midwifery care - demanding and rewarding with new insights', was based on three themes: 1) A challenging but evolving start, 2) Varying views within the midwifery group, and 3) Visions for the future. It was revealed that the midwives had to handle the grief process of the closure of the labor ward alongside their enthusiasm of being part of a continuity of midwifery care model project.

CONCLUSIONS

The establishment of the model in light of the labor ward closure was associated with conflict within the community and this had implications for the midwives. Midwives who are attracted to work in continuity models need to understand and incorporate the prerequisites of such models. In addition, long commuting to a labor ward requires enough midwives to maintain safety and security for the women at all times.

"Cos You're Quite Normal, Aren't You?": Epistemic and Deontic Orientations in the Presentation of Model of Care Talk in Antenatal Consultations

Women's involvement in decision-making around antenatal care is an issue of ongoing debate and discussion. Most research on the topic has used interview and focus group methods to examine women's perspectives. The present study uses a different kind of evidence. By analyzing recordings of actual antenatal consultations, this paper presents a preliminary exploration of model-of-care talk in a hospital setting where a policy of woman-centered care underpinned practice. Conversation Analysis was used to examine how model-of-care pathways were introduced by midwives and discussed with women in consultations. Drawing on interactional work on deontic (i.e., the rights and responsibilities of speakers to determine courses of action) and epistemic (i.e., speakers' claims to knowledge) orientations, this paper offers an account of how woman-centered care is accomplished in a hospital setting. The findings demonstrate how midwives routinely relied on their epistemic knowledge regarding women's health to invoke a "normal" categorization that worked to position midwifery-led care as an appropriate pathway. Examination of model-of-care talk also demonstrated how authority to choose a pathway was typically managed so as to reside with the woman. Talk that topicalized epidural forms of pain management were also examined, as institutional policy around where birth could occur in the hospital system under study restricted women's options (a planned epidural precluded woman access to midwifery-led care during delivery). The findings demonstrate the various ways in which midwives created opportunities for woman-centered care in an institutional setting in which there were logistical restrictions on women's choices.

Understanding how midwives employed by the National Health Service facilitate women's alternative birthing choices: Findings from a feminist pragmatist study

UK legislation and government policy favour women's rights to bodily autonomy and active involvement in childbirth decision-making including the right to decline recommendations of care/treatment. However, evidence suggests that both women and maternity professionals can face challenges enacting decisions outside of sociocultural norms. This study explored how NHS midwives facilitated women's alternative physiological birthing choices-defined in this study as 'birth choices that go outside of local/national maternity guidelines or when women decline recommended treatment of care, in the pursuit of a physiological birth'. The study was underpinned by a feminist pragmatist theoretical framework and narrative methodology was used to collect professional stories of practice via self-written narratives and interviews. Through purposive and snowball sampling, a diverse sample in terms of age, years of experience, workplace settings and model of care they operated within, 45 NHS midwives from across the UK were recruited. Data were analysed using narrative thematic that generated four themes that described midwives' processes of facilitating women's alternative physiological births: 1. Relationship building, 2. Processes of support and facilitation, 3. Behind the scenes, 4. Birth facilitation. Collectively, the midwives were involved in a wide range of alternative birth choices across all birth settings. Fundamental to their practice was the development of mutually trusting relationships with the women which were strongly asserted a key component of safe care. The participants highlighted a wide range of personal and advanced clinical skills which was framed within an inherent desire to meet the women's needs. Capturing what has been successfully achieved within institutionalised settings, specifically how, maternity providers may benefit from the findings of this study.

Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS)

OBJECTIVES

To describe the extent to which local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units align with national guidance; to describe variation in individual admission criteria; and to describe the extent to which alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are the default option for eligible women.

DESIGN

National cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

All 122 UK maternity services with midwifery units, between October 2018 and February 2019.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Alignment of local admission guidelines with national guidance (NICE CG190); frequency and nature of variation in individual admission criteria; percentage of services with AMU as default birth setting for eligible women.

RESULTS

Admission guidelines were received from 87 maternity services (71%), representing 153 units, and we analysed 85 individual guideline documents. Overall, 92% of local admission guidelines varied from national guidance; 76% contained both some admission criteria that were 'more inclusive' and some that were 'more restrictive' than national guidance. The most common 'more inclusive' admission criteria, occurring in 40-80% of guidelines, were: explicit admission of women with parity ≥4; aged 35-40yrs; with a BMI 30-35kg/m2; selective admission of women with a BMI 35-40kg/m2; Group B Streptococcus carriers; and those undergoing induction of labour. The most common 'more restrictive' admission criteria, occurring in around 30% of guidelines, excluded women who: declined blood products; had experienced female genital cutting; were aged <16yrs; or had not attended for regular antenatal care. Over half of services (59%) reported the AMU as the default option for healthy women with straightforward pregnancies.

CONCLUSIONS

The variation in local midwifery unit admission criteria found in this study represents a potentially confusing and inequitable basis for women making choices about planned place of birth. A review of national guidance may be indicated and where a lack of relevant evidence underlies variation in admission criteria, further research by planned place of birth is required.

Single-room maternity care: Systematic review and narrative synthesis

Aim

To describe the single‐room maternity care model and evaluate its influence on patient, provider and system outcomes.

Design

Mixed‐method systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Methods

We conducted searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the grey literature from January 1985–August 2018, yielding 151 records. Pairs of reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria using a standardized screening tool to both titles/abstracts and full texts. Overall, 13 studies were retained.

Results

Most studies of single‐room care were from the United States and Canada, and assessed costs, patient satisfaction and/or provider satisfaction. Studies used cross‐sectional and/or pre–post comparative, retrospective descriptive and qualitative designs. Methodological quality of quantitative studies was generally weak, and few studies conducted inferential statistics. Maternal satisfaction with the single‐room maternity model was positive across the studies; however, healthcare provider satisfaction was mixed.

Healing architecture and Snoezelen in delivery room design: a qualitative study of women's birth experiences and patient-centeredness of care

BACKGROUND

The physical place and environment has a profound influence on experiences, health and wellbeing of birthing women. An alternatively designed delivery room, inspired by the principles of healing architecture and Snoezelen, was established in a Danish regional hospital. These principles provided knowledge of how building and interior design affects the senses, including users' pain experience and stress levels. The aim of the study was to explore women's experience of the environment and its ability to support the concept of patient-centeredness in the care of birthing women.

METHODS

Applying a hermeneutical-phenomenological methodology, fourteen semi-structured interviews with low-risk women giving birth in an alternative delivery room at an obstetric unit in Denmark were undertaken 3-7 weeks after birth.

RESULTS

Overall, women's experiences of given birth in the alternative delivery room were positive. Our analysis suggests that the environment was well adapted to the women's needs, as it offered a stress- and anxiety-reducing transition to the hospital setting, at the same time as it helped them obtain physical comfort. The environment also signaled respect for the family's needs as it supported physical and emotional interaction between the woman and her partner and helped relieve her concern for the partner's well-being. The psychosocial support provided by the midwives appeared inseparable from the alternative delivery room, as both affected, amplified, and occasionally restricted the women's experience of the physical environment.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the use of principles of healing architecture and Snoezelen in birth environments and add to the evidence on how the physical design of hospital environments influence on both social and physical aspects of the well-being of patients. The environment appeared to encompass several dimensions of the concept of patient-centered care.

Low-Risk Planned Out-of-Hospital Births: Characteristics and Perinatal Outcomes in Different Italian Birth Settings

BACKGROUND

The present observational study aimed to describe women and delivery characteristics and early birth outcomes according to planned out-of-hospital delivery and to compare this information with comparable planned in-hospital deliveries.

METHODS

1099 healthy low-risk women who delivered out-of-hospital between 2014 to 2018, with a gestational age of 37-42 completed weeks of pregnancy, with single, vertex babies whose birth was expected to be vaginal and spontaneous were enrolled. Moreover, a case-control study was designed comparing characteristics of these births to a matched 1:5 sample.

RESULTS

living in a medium city (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.19-2.74), being multiparous (RR 1.66, CI 1.09-2.51), having the first child at ≥35 years old (RR 1.84, CI 1.02-3.33), not working (RR 1.77, CI 1.06-2.96), not being omnivorous (RR 1.80, CI 1.08-3.00), and not smoking (RR 2.53, CI 1.06-6.07) were all related to an increased chance of delivering at home compared to in a freestanding midwifery unit. The significant factors in choosing to give birth out-of-hospital instead of in-hospital were living in a large or medium city (OR 2.20; 1.75-2.77; OR 2.41; 1.93-3.02) and having a secondary or higher level of education (OR > 2 for both parents). Within the first week of delivery, 6 of 1099 mothers and 19 of 1099 neonates were hospitalized.

CONCLUSIONS

out-of-hospital births in women with low-risk pregnancies is a possible option that needs to be planned, monitored, regulated, and evaluated according to healthcare control systems in order to work, as in hospitals, for the safest and most effective care to a mother and her neonate(s).

The "Cocoon," first alongside midwifery-led unit within a Belgian hospital: Comparison of the maternal and neonatal outcomes with the standard obstetric unit over 2 years

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with a low-risk pregnancy attending the "Cocoon," an alongside midwifery-led birth center and care pathway, with women with a low-risk pregnancy attending the traditional care pathway in a tertiary care hospital in Belgium.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with a low-risk pregnancy who chose to adhere to the Cocoon pathway of care (n = 590) and women with a low-risk pregnancy who chose the traditional pathway of care (n = 394) from March 1, 2014, to February 29, 2016. We performed all analyses using an intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

In this setting, the cesarean birth rate was 10.3% compared with 16.0% in the traditional care pathway (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] 0.42 [95% CI 0.25-0.69]), the induction rate was 16.3% compared with 30.5% (0.46 [0.30-0.69]), the epidural analgesia rate was 24.9% compared with 59.1% (0.15 [0.09-0.22]), and the episiotomy rate was 6.8% compared with 14.5% (0.31 [0.17-0.56]). There was no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. Intrapartum and postpartum transfer rates to the traditional pathway of care were 21.1% and 7.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Women planning their births in the midwifery-led unit, the Cocoon, experienced fewer interventions with no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. Our study gives initial support for the introduction of similar midwifery-led care pathways in other hospitals in Belgium.

Factors influencing utilisation of ‘free-standing’ and ‘alongside’ midwifery units for low-risk births in England: a mixed-methods study

Background

Midwifery-led units (MUs) are recommended for ‘low-risk’ births by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence but according to the National Audit Office were not available in one-quarter of trusts in England in 2013 and, when available, were used by only a minority of the low-risk women for whom they should be suitable. This study explores why.

Objectives

To map the provision of MUs in England and explore barriers to and facilitators of their development and use; and to ascertain stakeholder views of interventions to address these barriers and facilitators.

Design

Mixed methods – first, MU access and utilisation across England was mapped; second, local media coverage of the closure of free-standing midwifery units (FMUs) were analysed; third, case studies were undertaken in six sites to explore the barriers and facilitators that have an impact on the development of MUs; and, fourth, by convening a stakeholder workshop, interventions to address the barriers and facilitators were discussed.

Setting

English NHS maternity services.

Participants

All trusts with maternity services.

Interventions

Establishing MUs.

Main outcome measures

Numbers and types of MUs and utilisation of MUs.

Results

Births in MUs across England have nearly tripled since 2011, to 15% of all births. However, this increase has occurred almost exclusively in alongside units, numbers of which have doubled. Births in FMUs have stayed the same and these units are more susceptible to closure. One-quarter of trusts in England have no MUs; in those that do, nearly all MUs are underutilised. The study findings indicate that most trust managers, senior midwifery managers and obstetricians do not regard their MU provision as being as important as their obstetric-led unit provision and therefore it does not get embedded as an equal and parallel component in the trust’s overall maternity package of care. The analysis illuminates how provision and utilisation are influenced by a complex range of factors, including the medicalisation of childbirth, financial constraints and institutional norms protecting the status quo.

Limitations

When undertaking the case studies, we were unable to achieve representativeness across social class in the women’s focus groups and struggled to recruit finance directors for individual interviews. This may affect the transferability of our findings.

Conclusions

Although there has been an increase in the numbers and utilisation of MUs since 2011, significant obstacles remain to MUs reaching their full potential, especially FMUs. This includes the capacity and willingness of providers to address women’s information needs. If these remain unaddressed at commissioner and provider level, childbearing women’s access to MUs will continue to be restricted.

Future work

Work is needed on optimum approaches to improve decision-makers’ understanding and use of clinical and economic evidence in service design. Increasing women’s access to information about MUs requires further studies of professionals’ understanding and communication of evidence. The role of FMUs in the context of rural populations needs further evaluation to take into account user and community impact.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Mapping the trajectories for women and their babies from births planned at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital in New South Wales, Australia, between 2000 and 2012

BACKGROUND

In New South Wales (NSW) Australia, women at low risk of complications can choose from three birth settings: home, birth centre and hospital. Between 2000 and 2012, around 6.4% of pregnant women planned to give birth in a birth centre (6%) or at home (0.4%) and 93.6% of women planned to birth in a hospital. A proportion of the woman in the home and birth centre groups transferred to hospital. However, their pathways or trajectories are largely unknown.

AIM

The aim was to map the trajectories and interventions experienced by women and their babies from births planned at home, in a birth centre or in a hospital over a 13-year period in NSW.

METHODS

Using population-based linked datasets from NSW, women at low risk of complications, with singleton pregnancies, gestation 37-41 completed weeks and spontaneous onset of labour were included. We used a decision tree framework to depict the trajectories of these women and estimate the probabilities of the following: giving birth in their planned setting; being transferred; requiring interventions and neonatal admission to higher level hospital care. The trajectories were analysed by parity.

RESULTS

Over a 13-year period, 23% of nulliparous and 0.8% of multiparous women planning a home birth were transferred to hospital. In the birth centre group, 34% of nulliparae and 12% of multiparas were transferred to a hospital. Normal vaginal birth rates were higher in multiparous women compared to nulliparous women in all settings. Neonatal admission to SCN/NICU was highest in the planned hospital group for nulliparous women (10.1%), 7.1% for nulliparous women planning a birth centre birth and 5.1% of nulliparous women planning a homebirth. Multiparas had lower admissions to SCN/NICU for all thee settings (hospital 6.3%, BC 3.6%, home 1.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Women who plan to give birth at home or in a birth centre have high rates of vaginal birth, even when transferred to hospital. Evidence on the trajectories of women who choose to give birth at home or in birth centres will assist the planning, costing and expansion of models of care in NSW.

Outcomes by birth setting and caregiver for low risk women in Indonesia: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Care for women during pregnancy, labour, birth and the postpartum period is essential to reducing maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, however the ideal place and organisation of care provision has not been established. The World Health Organization recommends a two-tier maternity care system involving first-level care in community facilities, with backup obstetric hospital care. However, evidence from high-income countries is increasingly showing benefits for low risk women birthing outside of hospital with skilled birth assistance and access to backup care, including lower rates of intervention. Indonesia is a lower middle-income country with a network of village based midwives who attend births at homes, clinics and hospitals, and has reduced mortality rates in recent decades while maintaining largely low rates of intervention. However, the country has not met its neonatal or maternal mortality reduction goals, and it is unclear whether greater improvements could be made if all women birthed in hospital. BODY: This paper reviewed the literature on birth outcomes by place of birth and/or caregiver for women considering their risk of complications in Indonesia. A systematic literature search of Pubmed, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Popline, WHOLIS and clinical trials registers in 2016 and updated in 2018 resulted in screening 2211 studies after removing duplicates. Twenty four studies were found to present outcomes by place of birth or caregiver and were included. The studies were varied in their findings with respect of the outcomes for women birthing at home and in hospital, with and without skilled care. The quality of most studies was rated as poor or moderate using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Only one study gave an overall assessment of the risk status of the women included, making it impossible to draw conclusions about outcomes for low risk women specifically; other studies adjusted for various individual risk factors.

CONCLUSION

From the studies in this review, it is impossible to assess the outcomes for low risk women birthing with health professionals within and outside of Indonesian hospitals. This finding is supported by reviews from other countries with developing maternity systems. Better evidence and information is needed before determinations can be made about whether attended birth outside of hospitals is a safe option for low risk women outside of high income countries.

Using a Birth Center Model of Care to Improve Reproductive Outcomes in Informal Settlements-a Case Study

The world is becoming increasingly urban. For the first time in history, more than 50% of human beings live in cities (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, ed. (2015)). Rapid urbanization is often chaotic and unstructured, leading to the formation of informal settlements or slums. Informal settlements are frequently located in environmentally hazardous areas and typically lack adequate sanitation and clean water, leading to poor health outcomes for residents. In these difficult circumstances women and children fair the worst, and reproductive outcomes for women living in informal settlements are grim. Insufficient uptake of antenatal care, lack of skilled birth attendants and poor-quality care contribute to maternal mortality rates in informal settlements that far outpace wealthier urban neighborhoods (Chant and McIlwaine (2016)). In response, a birth center model of maternity care is proposed for informal settlements. Birth centers have been shown to provide high quality, respectful, culturally appropriate care in high resource settings (Stapleton et al. J Midwifery Women's Health 58(1):3-14, 2013; Hodnett et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD000012, 2012; Brocklehurst et al. BMJ 343:d7400, 2011). In this paper, three case studies are described that support the use of this model in low resource, urban settings.

Parturition and the perinatal period: can mode of delivery impact on the future health of the neonate?

Caesarean section and instrumental delivery rates are increasing in many parts of the world for a range of cultural and medical reasons, with limited consideration as to how 'mode of delivery' may impact on childhood and long-term health. However, babies born particularly by pre-labour caesarean section appear to have a subtly different physiology from those born by normal vaginal delivery, with both acute and chronic complications such as respiratory and cardio-metabolic morbidities being apparent. It has been hypothesized that inherent mechanisms within the process of labour and vaginal delivery, far from being a passive mechanical process by which the fetus and placenta are expelled from the birth canal, may trigger certain protective developmental processes permissive for normal immunological and physiological development of the fetus postnatally. Traditionally the primary candidate mechanism has been the hormonal surges or stress response associated with labour and vaginal delivery, but there is increasing awareness that transfer of the maternal microbiome to the infant during parturition. Transgenerational transmission of disease traits through epigenetics are also likely to be important. Interventions such as probiotics, neonatal gut seeding and different approaches to clinical care have potential to influence parturition physiology and improve outcomes for infants.

Effects of the birthing room environment on vaginal births and client-centred outcomes for women at term planning a vaginal birth: BE-UP, a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background

Caesarean sections (CSs) are associated with increased risk for maternal morbidity and mortality. The recommendations of the recently published German national health goal ‘Health in Childbirth’ (Gesundheit rund um die Geburt) promote vaginal births (VBs).

This randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluates the effects of a complex intervention pertaining to the birth environment, based on the sociology of technical artefacts and symbolic interactionism. The intervention is intended to foster an upright position and mobility during labour, which lead to a higher probability of VB.

Methods/design

This study is an active controlled superiority trial with a two-arm parallel design. The complex intervention involves making changes to the birthing room to encourage an upright position and mobility of women in labour and to relax them, which may help them to cope with labour and may increase self-determination. This may result in more VBs. Included in the study are primiparae and multiparae with a singleton foetus in cephalic presentation at term planning a VB. According to the sample size calculation, 3800 women in 12 obstetrical units are to be included. Randomisation will be performed centrally and controlled by an independent coordination centre. Blinding of participants and staff is not possible. Key outcomes are VB, episiotomy, perineal tears, epidural analgesia, critical outcome of newborn at term and maternal self-determination during birth. Additionally, a health economic evaluation will be performed.

Discussion

This is the first adequately powered multicentre RCT examining the effect of a redesigned birthing room on the probability of a VB and patient-centred physical and emotional outcomes. An increase in the number of VBs by 5% from a baseline of 74% to 79% would result in 21,000 women per year experiencing a VB rather than a CS in Germany. Expected benefits are greater self-determination during labour, improved physical and emotional client-centred outcomes, fewer medical interventions and a reduction in health-care costs.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS00012854. Registered on 7 March 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2979-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A systematic review of person-centered care interventions to improve quality of facility-based delivery

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a systematic review to summarize the global evidence on person-centered care (PCC) interventions in delivery facilities in order to: (1) map the PCC objectives of past interventions (2) to explore the impact of PCC objectives on PCC and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We developed a search strategy based on a current definition of PCC. We searched for English-language, peer-reviewed and original research articles in multiple databases from 1990 to 2016 and conducted hand searches of the Cochrane library and gray literature. We used systematic review methodology that enabled us to extract and synthesize quantitative and qualitative data. We categorized interventions according to their primary and secondary PCC objectives. We categorized outcomes into person-centered and clinical (labor and delivery, perinatal, maternal mental health).

RESULTS

Our initial search strategy yielded 9378 abstracts; we conducted full-text reviews of 32 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 2 mixed-methods studies, and 7 systematic reviews (N = 47). Past interventions pursued these primary PCC objectives: autonomy, supportive care, social support, the health facility environment, and dignity. An intervention's primary and secondary PCC objectives frequently did not align with the measured person-centered outcomes. Generally, PCC interventions either improved or made no difference to person-centered outcomes. There was no clear relationship between PCC objectives and clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review presents a comprehensive analysis of facility-based delivery interventions using a current definition of person-centered care. Current definitions of PCC propose new domains of inquiry but may leave out previous domains.

Assessing the Feasibility of Measuring Variation in Facility Design Among American Childbirth Facilities

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of quantifying variation in childbirth facility design and explore the implications for childbirth service delivery across the United States.

BACKGROUND

Design has been shown to impact quality of care in childbirth. However, most prior studies use qualitative data to examine associations between the design of patient rooms and patient experience. There has been limited exploration of measures of unit design and its impact on care provision.

METHOD

We recruited 12 childbirth facilities that were diverse with regard to facility type, location, delivery volume, cesarean delivery rate, and practice model. Each facility provided annotated floor plans and participated in a site visit or telephone interview to provide information on their design and clinical practices. These data were analyzed with self-reported primary cesarean delivery rates to assess associations between design and care delivery.

RESULTS

We observed wide variation in childbirth unit design. Deliveries per labor room per year ranged from 75 to 479. The ratio of operating rooms to labor rooms ranged from 1:1 to 1:9. The average distance between labor rooms and workstations ranged from 23 to 114 ft, and the maximum distance between labor rooms ranged from 9 to 242 ft. More deliveries per room, fewer labor rooms per operating room, and longer distances between spaces were all associated with higher primary cesarean delivery rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically relevant differences in design can be feasibly measured across diverse childbirth facilities. The design of these facilities may not be optimally matched to service delivery needs.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.Overall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.Interventions targeted at women or familiesChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.Nurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.There were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.Interventions targeted at healthcare professionalsImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.Interventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilitiesCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.We studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).We are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.

Providers' Reports of Environmental Conditions and Resources at Births in the United States

Environmental conditions and resources that may influence provider's behaviors have been investigated in birth environments focusing on location rather than conditions and available resources. Using a descriptive, cross sectional design, we surveyed a random sample of certified nurse-midwives (CNMs), obstetricians, family practice physicians, and certified professional midwives (CPMs) to describe conditions, resources, and workforce present during U.S. births. In all, 1,243 midwives and physicians reported most environmental resources were present at almost 100% of births they attended. Conditions varied: room noise acceptability restriction of phone calls/texts from any source and lighting kept to a minimum. Trainees were present at most births regardless of setting and provider type. The impact of room noise, phone calls/texting, and lighting on outcomes should be determined. The roles and impact of personnel, including trainees, should be described. The extent to which clusters of resources are associated with outcomes might provide new directions for interventions that improve care.

Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Parenteral opioids (intramuscular and intravenous drugs including patient-controlled analgesia) are used for pain relief in labour in many countries throughout the world. This review is an update of a review first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability to women of different types, doses and modes of administration of parenteral opioid analgesia in labour. A second objective is to assess the effects of opioids in labour on the baby in terms of safety, condition at birth and early feeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (11 May 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining the use of intramuscular or intravenous opioids (including patient-controlled analgesia) for women in labour. Cluster-randomised trials were also eligible for inclusion, although none were identified. We did not include quasi-randomised trials. We looked at studies comparing an opioid with another opioid, placebo, no treatment, other non-pharmacological interventions (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)) or inhaled analgesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of each evidence synthesis using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 70 studies that compared an opioid with placebo or no treatment, another opioid administered intramuscularly or intravenously or compared with TENS applied to the back. Sixty-one studies involving more than 8000 women contributed data to the review and these studies reported on 34 different comparisons; for many comparisons and outcomes only one study contributed data. All of the studies were conducted in hospital settings, on healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 37 to 42 weeks' gestation. We excluded studies focusing on women with pre-eclampsia or pre-existing conditions or with a compromised fetus. Overall, the evidence was graded as low- or very low-quality regarding the analgesic effect of opioids and satisfaction with analgesia; evidence was downgraded because of study design limitations, and many of the studies were underpowered to detect differences between groups and so effect estimates were imprecise. Due to the large number of different comparisons, it was not possible to present GRADE findings for every comparison.For the comparison of intramuscular pethidine (50 mg/100 mg) versus placebo, no clear differences were found in maternal satisfaction with analgesia measured during labour (number of women satisfied or very satisfied after 30 minutes: 50 women; 1 trial; risk ratio (RR) 7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 128.87, very low-quality evidence), or number of women requesting an epidural (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; very low-quality evidence). Pain scores (reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) score of at least 40 mm: 50 women; 1 trial; RR 25, 95% CI 1.56 to 400, low-quality evidence) and pain measured in labour (women reporting pain relief to be "good" or "fair" within one hour of administration: 116 women; 1 trial; RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.47, low-quality evidence) were both reduced in the pethidine group, and fewer women requested any additional analgesia (50 women; 1 trial; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94, low-quality evidence).There was limited information on adverse effects and harm to women and babies. There were few results that clearly showed that one opioid was more effective than another. Overall, findings indicated that parenteral opioids provided some pain relief and moderate satisfaction with analgesia in labour. Opioid drugs were associated with maternal nausea, vomiting and drowsiness, although different opioid drugs were associated with different adverse effects. There was no clear evidence of adverse effects of opioids on the newborn. We did not have sufficient evidence to assess which opioid drug provided the best pain relief with the least adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Though most evidence is of low- or very-low quality, for healthy women with an uncomplicated pregnancy who are giving birth at 37 to 42 weeks, parenteral opioids appear to provide some relief from pain in labour but are associated with drowsiness, nausea, and vomiting in the woman. Effects on the newborn are unclear. Maternal satisfaction with opioid analgesia was largely unreported. The review needs to be examined alongside related Cochrane reviews. More research is needed to determine which analgesic intervention is most effective, and provides greatest satisfaction to women with acceptable adverse effects for mothers and their newborn.

Immersion in water during labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings. However, there are concerns around neonatal water inhalation, increased requirement for admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), maternal and/or neonatal infection, and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). This is an update of a review last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (first, second and third stage of labour) on women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing water immersion with no immersion, or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth in healthy low-risk women at term gestation with a singleton fetus. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 15 trials conducted between 1990 and 2015 (3663 women): eight involved water immersion during the first stage of labour; two during the second stage only; four during the first and second stages of labour, and one comparing early versus late immersion during the first stage of labour. No trials evaluated different baths/pools, or third-stage labour management. All trials were undertaken in a hospital labour ward setting, with a varying degree of medical intervention considered as routine practice. No study was carried out in a midwifery-led care setting. Most trial authors did not specify the parity of women. Trials were subject to varying degrees of bias: the intervention could not be blinded and there was a lack of information about randomisation, and whether analyses were undertaken by intention-to-treat.Immersion in water versus no immersion (first stage of labour)There is probably little or no difference in spontaneous vaginal birth between immersion and no immersion (82% versus 83%; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; 6 trials; 2559 women; moderate-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (14% versus 12%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05; 6 trials; 2559 women; low-quality evidence); and caesarean section (4% versus 5%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2652 women; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of immersion on estimated blood loss (mean difference (MD) -14.33 mL, 95% CI -63.03 to 34.37; 2 trials; 153 women; very low-quality evidence) and third- or fourth-degree tears (3% versus 3%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.18; 4 trials; 2341 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was a small reduction in the risk of using regional analgesia for women allocated to water immersion from 43% to 39% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; 5 trials; 2439 women; moderate-quality evidence). Perinatal deaths were not reported, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (6% versus 8%; average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.97; 2 trials; 1511 infants; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence), or on neonatal infection rates (1% versus 1%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94; 5 trials; 1295 infants; very low-quality evidence).Immersion in water versus no immersion (second stage of labour)There were no clear differences between groups for spontaneous vaginal birth (97% versus 99%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 120 women; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (2% versus 2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence); caesarean section (2% versus 1%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), and NICU admissions (11% versus 9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.59; 2 trials; 291 women; very low-quality evidence). Use of regional analgesia was not relevant to the second stage of labour. Third- or fourth-degree tears, and estimated blood loss were not reported in either trial. No trial reported neonatal infection but did report neonatal temperature less than 36.2°C at birth (9% versus 9%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.20; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), greater than 37.5°C at birth (6% versus 15%; RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.73 to 9.35; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), and fever reported in first week (5% versus 2%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.82; 1 trial; 171 infants; very low-quality evidence), with no clear effect between groups being observed. One perinatal death occurred in the immersion group in one trial (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.20; 1 trial; 120 infants; very low-quality evidence). The infant was born to a mother with HIV and the cause of death was deemed to be intrauterine infection.There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the baby or woman from either the first or second stage of labour.Only one trial (200 women) compared early and late entry into the water and there were insufficient data to show any clear differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In healthy women at low risk of complications there is moderate to low-quality evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour probably has little effect on mode of birth or perineal trauma, but may reduce the use of regional analgesia. The evidence for immersion during the second stage of labour is limited and does not show clear differences on maternal or neonatal outcomes intensive care. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring or giving birth in water. Available evidence is limited by clinical variability and heterogeneity across trials, and no trial has been conducted in a midwifery-led setting.

'Just an extra pair of hands'? A qualitative study of obstetric service users' and professionals' views towards 24/7 consultant presence on a single UK tertiary maternity unit

OBJECTIVES

To explore the views of maternity service users and professionals towards obstetric consultant presence 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews conducted face to face with maternity service users and professionals in March and April 2016. All responses were analysed together (ie, both service users' and professionals' responses) using an inductive thematic analysis.

SETTING

A large tertiary maternity unit in the North West of England that has implemented 24/7 obstetric consultant presence.

PARTICIPANTS

Antenatal and postnatal inpatient service users (n=10), midwives, obstetrics and gynaecology specialty trainees and consultant obstetricians (n=10).

RESULTS

Five themes were developed: (1) 'Just an extra pair of hands?' (the consultant's role), (2) the context, (3) the team, (4) training and (5) change for the consultant. Respondents acknowledged that obstetrics is an acute specialty, and consultants resolve intrapartum complications. However, variability in consultant experience and behaviour altered perception of its impact. Service users were generally positive towards 24/7 consultant presence but were not aware that it was not standard practice across the UK. Professionals were more pragmatic and discussed how the implementation of 24/7 working had affected their work, development of trainees and potential impacts on future consultants.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings raised several issues that should be considered by practitioners and policymakers when making decisions about the implementation of 24/7 consultant presence in other maternity units, including attributes of the consultants, the needs of maternity units, the team hierarchy, trainee development, consultants' other duties and consultant absences.

'Keeping birth normal': Exploratory evaluation of a training package for midwives in an inner-city, alongside midwifery unit

OBJECTIVES

to gain understanding about how participants perceived the value and effectiveness of 'Keeping Birth Normal' training, barriers to implementing it in an along-side midwifery unit, and how the training might be enhanced in future iterations.

DESIGN

exploratory interpretive.

SETTING

inner-city maternity service.

PARTICIPANTS

31 midwives attending a one-day training package on one of three occasions.

METHODS

data were collected using semi-structured observation of the training, a short feedback form (23/31 participants), and focus groups (28/31 participants). Feedback form data were analysed using summative content analysis, following which all data sets were pooled and thematically analysed using a template agreed by the researchers.

FINDINGS

We identified six themes contributing to the workshop's effectiveness as perceived by participants. Three related to the workshop design: (1) balanced content, (2) sharing stories and strategies and (3) 'less is more.' And three related to the workshop leaders: (4) inspiration and influence, (5) cultural safety and (6) managing expectations. Cultural focus on risk and low prioritisation of normal birth were identified as barriers to implementing evidence-based practice supporting normal birth. Building a community of practice and the role of consultant midwives were identified as potential opportunities.

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

a review of evidence, local statistics and practical skills using active educational approaches was important to this training. Two factors not directly related to content appeared equally important: catalysing a community of practice and the perceived power of workshop leaders to influence organisational systems limiting the agency of individual midwives. Cyclic, interactive training involving consultant midwives, senior midwives and the multidisciplinary team may be recommended to be most effective.

The Mothers on Respect (MOR) index: measuring quality, safety, and human rights in childbirth

BACKGROUND

Abuse of human rights in childbirth are documented in low, middle and high resource countries. A systematic review across 34 countries by the WHO Research Group on the Treatment of Women During Childbirth concluded that there is no consensus at a global level on how disrespectful maternity care is measured. In British Columbia, a community-led participatory action research team developed a survey tool that assesses women's experiences with maternity care, including disrespect and discrimination.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was completed by women of childbearing age from diverse communities across British Columbia. Several items (31/130) assessed characteristics of their communication with care providers. We assessed the psychometric properties of two versions of a scale (7 and 14 items), among women who described experiences with a single maternity provider (n=2514 experiences among 1672 women). We also calculated the proportion and selected characteristics of women who scored in the bottom 10th percentile (those who experienced the least respectful care).

RESULTS

To demonstrate replicability, we report psychometric results separately for three samples of women (S1 and S2) (n=2271), (S3, n=1613). Analysis of item-to-total correlations and factor loadings indicated a single construct 14-item scale, which we named the Mothers on Respect index (MORi). Items in MORi assess the nature of respectful patient-provider interactions and their impact on a person's sense of comfort, behavior, and perceptions of racism or discrimination. The scale exhibited good internal consistency reliability. MORi- scores among these samples differed by socio-demographic profile, health status, experience with interventions and mode of birth, planned and actual place of birth, and type of provider.

CONCLUSION

The MOR index is a reliable, patient-informed quality and safety indicator that can be applied across jurisdictions to assess the nature of provider-patient relationships, and access to person-centered maternity care.

Differences in optimality index between planned place of birth in a birth centre and alternative planned places of birth, a nationwide prospective cohort study in The Netherlands: results of the Dutch Birth Centre Study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the Optimality Index of planned birth in a birth centre with planned birth in a hospital and planned home birth for low-risk term pregnant women who start labour under the responsibility of a community midwife.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Low-risk pregnant women under care of a community midwife and living in a region with one of the 21 participating Dutch birth centres or in a region with the possibility for midwife-led hospital birth. Home birth was commonly available in all regions included in the study.

PARTICIPANTS

3455 low-risk term pregnant women (1686 nulliparous and 1769 multiparous) who gave birth between 1 July 2013 and 31 December 2013: 1668 planned birth centre births, 701 planned midwife-led hospital births and 1086 planned home births.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The Optimality IndexNL-2015, a tool to measure 'maximum outcome with minimal intervention', was assessed by planned place of birth being a birth centre, a hospital setting or at home. Also, a composite maternal and perinatal adverse outcome score was calculated for the different planned places of birth.

RESULTS

There were no differences in Optimality Index NL-2015 for pregnant women who planned to give birth in a birth centre compared with women who planned to give birth in a hospital. Although effect sizes were small, women who planned to give birth at home had a higher Optimality Index NL-2015 than women who planned to give birth in a birth centre. The differences were larger for multiparous than for nulliparous women.

CONCLUSION

The Optimality Index NL-2015 for women with planned birth centre births was comparable with planned midwife-led hospital births. Women with planned home births had a higher Optimality Index NL-2015, that is, a higher sum score of evidence-based items with an optimal value than women with planned birth centre births.

Mode of birth and medical interventions among women at low risk of complications: A cross-national comparison of birth settings in England and the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

To compare mode of birth and medical interventions between broadly equivalent birth settings in England and the Netherlands.

METHODS

Data were combined from the Birthplace study in England (from April 2008 to April 2010) and the National Perinatal Register in the Netherlands (2009). Low risk women in England planning birth at home (16,470) or in freestanding midwifery units (11,133) were compared with Dutch women with planned home births (40,468). Low risk English women with births planned in alongside midwifery units (16,418) or obstetric units (19,096) were compared with Dutch women with planned midwife-led hospital births (37,887).

RESULTS

CS rates varied across planned births settings from 6.5% to 15.5% among nulliparous and 0.6% to 5.1% among multiparous women. CS rates were higher among low risk nulliparous and multiparous English women planning obstetric unit births compared to Dutch women planning midwife-led hospital births (adjusted (adj) OR 1.89 (95% CI 1.64 to 2.18) and 3.66 (2.90 to 4.63) respectively). Instrumental vaginal birth rates varied from 10.7% to 22.5% for nulliparous and from 0.9% to 5.7% for multiparous women. Rates were lower in the English comparison groups apart from planned births in obstetric units. Transfer, augmentation and episiotomy rates were much lower in England compared to the Netherlands for all midwife-led groups. In most comparisons, epidural rates were higher among English groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering maternal outcomes, findings confirm advantages of giving birth in midwife-led settings for low risk women. Further research is needed into strategies to decrease rates of medical intervention in obstetric units in England and to reduce rates of avoidable transfer, episiotomy and augmentation of labour in the Netherlands.

Defining and describing birth centres in the Netherlands - a component study of the Dutch Birth Centre Study

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, a rapid increase of birth locations for low-risk births, other than conventional obstetric units, has been seen in the Netherlands. Internationally some of such locations are called birth centres. The varying international definitions for birth centres are not directly applicable for use within the Dutch obstetric system. A standard definition for a birth centre in the Netherlands is lacking. This study aimed to develop a definition of birth centres for use in the Netherlands, to identify these centres and to describe their characteristics.

METHODS

International definitions of birth centres were analysed to find common descriptions. In July 2013 the Dutch Birth Centre Questionnaire was sent to 46 selected Dutch birth locations that might qualify as birth centre. Questions included: location, reason for establishment, women served, philosophies, facilities that support physiological birth, hotel-facilities, management, environment and transfer procedures in case of referral. Birth centres were visited to confirm the findings from the Dutch Birth Centre Questionnaire and to measure distance and time in case of referral to obstetric care.

RESULTS

From all 46 birth locations the questionnaires were received. Based on this information a Dutch definition of a birth centre was constructed. This definition reads: "Birth centres are midwifery-managed locations that offer care to low risk women during labour and birth. They have a homelike environment and provide facilities to support physiological birth. Community midwives take primary professional responsibility for care. In case of referral the obstetric caregiver takes over the professional responsibility of care." Of the 46 selected birth locations 23 fulfilled this definition. Three types of birth centres were distinguished based on their location in relation to the nearest obstetric unit: freestanding (n = 3), alongside (n = 14) and on-site (n = 6). Transfer in case of referral was necessary for all freestanding and alongside birth centres. Birth centres varied in their reason for establishment and their characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-three Dutch birth centres were identified and divided into three different types based on location according to the situation in September 2013. Birth centres differed in their reason for establishment, facilities, philosophies, staffing and service delivery.

Midwife-led maternity care in Ireland - a retrospective cohort study

Background

Midwife-led maternity care is shown to be safe for women with low-risk during pregnancy. In Ireland, two midwife-led units (MLUs) were introduced in 2004 when a randomised controlled trial (the MidU study) was performed to compare MLU care with consultant-led care (CLU). Following study completion the two MLUs have remained as a maternity care option in Ireland. The aim of this study was to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes and transfer rates during six years in the larger of the MLU sites.

Methods

MLU data for the six years 2008–2013 were retrospectively analysed, following ethical approval. Rates of transfer, reasons for transfer, mode of birth, and maternal and fetal outcomes were assessed. Linear-by-Linear Association trend analysis was used for categorical data to evaluate trends over the years and one-way ANOVA was used when comparing continuous variables.

Results

During the study period, 3,884 women were registered at the MLU. The antenatal transfer rate was 37.4% and 2,410 women came to labour in the MLU. Throughout labour and birth, 567 women (14.6%) transferred to the CLU, of which 23 were transferred after birth due to need for suturing or postpartum hemorrhage. The most common reasons for intrapartum transfer were meconium stained liquor/abnormal fetal heart rate (30.3%), delayed labour progress in first or second stage (24.9%) and woman’s wish for epidural analgesia (15.1%). Of the 1,903 babies born in the MLU, 1,878 (98.7%) were spontaneous vaginal births and 25 (1.3%) were instrumental (ventouse/forceps). Only 25 babies (1.3%) were admitted to neonatal intensive care unit.

All spontaneous vaginal births from the MLU registered population, occurring in the study period in both the MLU and CLU settings (n = 2,785), were compared. In the MLU more often 1–2 midwives (90.9% vs 69.7%) cared for the women during birth, more women had three vaginal examinations or fewer (93.6% vs 79.9%) and gave birth in an upright position (standing, squatting or kneeling) (52.0% vs 9.4%), fewer women had an amniotomy (5.9% vs 25.9%) or episiotomy (3.4% vs 9.7%) and more women had a physiological management of third stage of labour (50.9% vs 4.6%).

Conclusions

Midwife-led care is a safe option that could be offered to a large proportion of healthy pregnant women. With strict transfer criteria there are very few complications during labour and birth. Maternity units without the option of MLU care should consider its introduction.

First-time mothers' choice of birthplace: influencing factors, expectations of the midwife's role and perceived safety

AIM

To explore first-time pregnant women's expectations and factors influencing their choice of birthplace.

BACKGROUND

Although outcomes and advantages for low-risk childbearing women giving birth in midwifery-led units and home compared with obstetric units have been investigated previously, there is little information on the factors that influence women's choice of place of birth.

DESIGN

A qualitative Straussian grounded theory methodology was adopted. Fourteen women expecting their first baby were recruited from three large National Health Service organizations that provided maternity services free at the point of care. The three organizations offered the following birthplace options: home, freestanding midwifery unit and obstetric unit. Ethical approvals were obtained and informed consent was gained from each participant.

METHODS

Data collection was undertaken in 2013-2014. One tape-recorded face-to-face semistructured interview was conducted with each woman in the third trimester of pregnancy.

FINDINGS

Findings are presented as three main themes: (i) influencing factors on the choice of birthplace; (ii) expectations on the midwife's 'being' and 'doing' roles; (iii) perceptions of safety.

CONCLUSION

Midwives should consider each woman's expectations and approach to birth beyond the planned birthplace, as these are often influenced by the intersection of various influencing factors. Several birthplace options should be made available to women in each maternity service and the alternatives should be shared with women by healthcare professionals during pregnancy to allow an informed choice. Virtual tours or visits to the birth units could also be offered to women to help them familiarize with the chosen setting.

Drivers of maternity care in high-income countries: can health systems support woman-centred care?

In high-income countries, medical interventions to address the known risks associated with pregnancy and birth have been largely successful and have resulted in very low levels of maternal and neonatal mortality. In this Series paper, we present the main care delivery models, with case studies of the USA and Sweden, and examine the main drivers of these models. Although nearly all births are attended by a skilled birth attendant and are in an institution, practice, cadre, facility size, and place of birth vary widely; for example, births occur in homes, birth centres, midwifery-led birthing units in hospitals, and in high intervention hospital birthing facilities. Not all care is evidenced-based, and some care provision may be harmful. Fear prevails among subsets of women and providers. In some settings, medical liability costs are enormous, human resource shortages are common, and costs of providing care can be very high. New challenges linked to alteration of epidemiology, such as obesity and older age during pregnancy, are also present. Data are often not readily available to inform policy and practice in a timely way and surveillance requires greater attention and investment. Outcomes are not equitable, and disadvantaged segments of the population face access issues and substantially elevated risks. At the same time, examples of excellence and progress exist, from clinical interventions to models of care and practice. Labourists (who provide care for all the facility's women for labour and delivery) are discussed as a potential solution. Quality and safety factors are informed by women's experiences, as well as medical evidence. Progress requires the ability to normalise birth for most women, with integrated services available if complications develop. We also discuss mechanisms to improve quality of care and highlight areas where research can address knowledge gaps with potential for impact. Evaluation of models that provide woman-centred care and the best outcomes without high costs is required to provide an impetus for change.

Evaluating a Midwife-Led Model of Antenatal Care for Women with a Previous Cesarean Section: A Retrospective, Comparative Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Research is yet to identify effective and safe interventions to increase the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rate. This research aimed to compare intended and actual VBAC rates before and after implementation of midwife-led antenatal care for women with one previous cesarean birth and no other risk factors in a large, tertiary maternity hospital in England.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, comparative cohort study. Data were collected from the medical records of women with one previous lower segment cesarean delivery and no other obstetric, medical, or psychological complications who gave birth at the hospital before (2008) and after (2011) the implementation of midwife-led antenatal care. Chi-squared analysis was used to calculate the odds ratio, and logistic regression to account for confounders.

RESULTS

Intended and actual VBAC rates were higher in 2011 compared with 2008: 90 percent vs. 77 percent, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.69 (1.48-4.87); and 61 percent vs. 47 percent, aOR 1.79 (1.17-2.75), respectively. Mean rates of unscheduled antenatal care sought via the delivery suite and inpatient admissions were lower in 2011 than 2008. Postnatal maternal and neonatal safety outcomes were similar between the two groups, except mean postnatal length of stay, which was shorter in 2011 compared with 2008 (2.67 vs. 3.15 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of midwife-led antenatal care for women with one previous cesarean offers a safe and effective alternative to traditional obstetrician-led antenatal care, and is associated with increased rates of intended and actual VBAC.

Evaluation of satisfaction with care in a midwifery unit and an obstetric unit: a randomized controlled trial of low-risk women

Background

Satisfaction with birth care is part of quality assessment of care. The aim of this study was to investigate possible differences in satisfaction with intrapartum care among low-risk women, randomized to a midwifery unit or to an obstetric unit within the same hospital.

Methods

Randomized controlled trial conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Østfold Hospital Trust, Norway. A total of 485 women with no expressed preference for level of birth care, assessed to be at low-risk at onset of spontaneous labor were included. To assess the overall satisfaction with intrapartum care, the Labour and Delivery Satisfaction Index (LADSI) questionnaire, was sent to the participants 6 months after birth. To assess women’s experience with intrapartum transfer, four additional items were added. In addition, we tested the effects of the following aspects on satisfaction; obstetrician involved, intrapartum transfer from the midwifery unit to the obstetric unit during labor, mode of delivery and epidural analgesia.

Results

Women randomized to the midwifery unit were significantly more satisfied with intrapartum care than those randomized to the obstetric unit (183 versus 176 of maximum 204 scoring points, mean difference 7.2, p = 0.002). No difference was found between the units for women who had an obstetrician involved during labor or delivery and who answered four additional questions on this aspect (mean item score 4.0 at the midwifery unit vs 4.3 at the obstetric unit, p = 0.3). Intrapartum transfer from the midwifery unit to an obstetric unit, operative delivery and epidurals influenced the level of overall satisfaction in a negative direction regardless of allocated unit (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Low-risk women with no expressed preference for level of birth care were more satisfied if allocated to the midwifery unit compared to the obstetric unit.

Trial registration

The trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT00857129. Initially released 03/05/2009.

Midwives' attitudes towards supporting normal labour and birth - A cross-sectional study in South Germany

OBJECTIVE

supporting healthy and normal physiological birth is part of the global maternity care agenda. Rising rates of interventions have been attributed to several factors, including characteristics, attitudes and preferences of childbearing women and their care providers. In this paper, the application of a scale that measures midwives' attitudes towards supporting normal labour and birth is described as well as factors that are associated with favourable attitudes, such as general self-efficacy, years in midwifery practice, and primary practice setting.

DESIGN

in this cross-sectional study an online questionnaire was sent out via e-mail to midwives in two regions of South Germany. The questionnaire contained a validated general self-efficacy scale, a 38-item instrument that measures attitudes towards supporting normal birth among German midwives and questions about midwives' practice experiences and educational preparation.

FINDINGS

on average, participants (n=188) were 39 years old (SD=10.3), and had 12 years of experience caring for women during labour and birth (SD=9.6). Multivariate modelling revealed that higher general self-efficacy, working primarily in out-of-hospital settings and having provided intrapartum care for fewer years were significantly associated with midwives' favourable attitudes towards supporting physiological birth (variance explained R(2)=29.0%, n=184). General self-efficacy (1.4%) and years of work experience (3.3%) contributed less of the variance in the outcome than work setting (24.5%). Sources of knowledge about normal birth were not significantly associated with the outcome and reduced the overall variance explained by 0.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

the study has shown that, compared to work setting, the general self-efficacy of German midwives, years providing intrapartum care and sources of knowledge about normal birth had comparatively little impact on their attitude towards supporting normal physiologic birth. Increasing exposure to out-of-hospital birth among German midwives throughout education and practice and fostering the skills and confidence necessary to support normal birth in hospital settings are important strategies to decrease unnecessary obstetric interventions.