How Were Conflicts of Interest Handled?

Conflicts of interest were potentially great but they were minimized by the great conviction from both Doctors and Health Ministry that something had to be done to improve data on perinatal health. To decrease the number of hospitals where deliveries took place, to concentrate doctors, nurses and equipment, to define staff and to acquire equipment and to train nurses and paediatricians was the way. One the point of view of cost-effectiveness, centralization of expensive technologies, and development of expertise concentrating cases in a same centre - Surgery, VLBW, etc- and lowering mortality rates and get better outcomes were clear health gains. In 1989 after the political decision of closing small maternities the committee return to villages and cities to explain to political local power and people, the decision, which kind of care they will have in the future, why and expected gains. Level I hospitals and Health Centers stop to have deliveries; Health Centers were given a great responsibility: the follow up of the most part of the normal pregnancies by GP. There was no economic pressure because the National Health Service is free, there are no economic incentives for obstetrical or neonatal care, hospitals are financed through ICD, hospital level is defined according to both delivery and newborn care. In 1989 the rule was “No results can be obtained without the interested and responsible participation of all – institutions and people”. At that time the emphasis was on training. There are geographic influences on regionalization for example for islands and inner and far geographic areas. Also we would like to emphasize the influence of demographics on regionalization. As birth rate continues to decrease the hospitals left open 20 years ago with more than 1500 deliveries have to be closed now because the number of deliveries decreased. It was much more difficult and unacceptable to close some few maternities now than 20 years ago. All the difference was that at that time reasons were explained and now it was a Minister order. Other fearful events are the opening of private hospitals, the lowering gross national income, the economic difficulties and financial problems.

The Role of Psychological Adjustment in the Decision-Making Process for Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy

BACKGROUND: This study's objective was to evaluate the role of psychological adjustment in the decision-making process to have an abortion and explore individual variables that might influence this decision. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we sequentially enrolled 150 women who made the decision to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy in Maternity Dr. Alfredo da Costa, in Lisbon, Portugal, between September 2008 and June 2009. The instruments were the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS), Satisfaction with Social Support Scale (SSSS), Emotional Assessment Scale (EAS), Decision Conflict Scale (DCS), and Beliefs and Values Questionnaire (BVQ). We analyzed the data using Student's T-tests, MANOVA, ANOVA, Tukey's post-hoc tests and CATPCA. Statistically significant effects were accepted for p<0.05. RESULTS: The participants found the decision difficult and emotionally demanding, although they also identified it as a low conflict decision. The prevailing emotions were sadness, fear and stress; but despite these feelings, the participants remained psychologically adjusted in the moment they decided to have an abortion. The resolution to terminate the pregnancy was essentially shared with supportive people and it was mostly motivated by socio-economic issues. The different beliefs and values found in this sample, and their possible associations are discussed. CONCLUSION: Despite high levels of stress, the women were psychologically adjusted at the time of making the decision to terminate the pregnancy. However, opposing what has been previously reported, the women presented high levels of sadness and fear, showing that this decision was hard to make, triggering disruptive emotions.