Young women's recent experience of labour and birth care in Queensland

Background Young parenthood continues to be an issue of concern in terms of clinical and psychosocial outcomes for mothers and their babies, with higher rates of medical complications such as preterm labour and hypertensive disease and a higher risk of depression. The aim of this study was to investigate how young age impacts on women's experience of intrapartum care. Methods Secondary analysis of data collected in a population based survey of women who had recently given birth in Queensland, comparing clinical and interpersonal aspects of the intrapartum maternity care experience for 237 eligible women aged 15–20 years and 6534 aged more than 20 years. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were undertaken. Results In the univariate analysis a number of variables were significantly associated with clinical aspects of labour and birth and perceptions of care: young women were more likely to birth in a public facility, to travel for birth and to live in less economically advantaged areas, to have a normal vaginal birth and to have one carer through labour. They were also less likely to report being treated with respect and kindness and talked to in a way they could understand. In logistic regression models, after adjustment for parity, other socio-demographic factors and mode of birth, younger mothers were still more likely to birth in a public facility, to travel for birth, to be more critical about interpersonal and aspects of care and the hospital or birth centre environment. Conclusion This study shows how experience of care during labour and birth is different for young women. Young women reported poorer quality interpersonal care which may well reflect an inferior care experience and stereotyping by health professionals, indicating a need for more effective staff engagement with young women at this time.

Born in another country : women's experience of labour and birth in Queensland, Australia

Background Women born outside Australia make up more than a fifth of the Queensland birthing population and like migrants in other parts of the world face the challenges of cultural dislocation and possible language barriers. Recognising that labour and birth are major life events the aim was to investigate the experiences of these women in comparison to native-born English speaking women. Methods Secondary analysis of data from a population based survey of women who had recently birthed in Queensland. Self-reported clinical outcomes and quality of interpersonal care of 481 women born outside Australia who spoke a language other than English at home were compared with those of 5569 Australian born women speaking only English. Results After adjustment for demographic factors and type of birthing facility, women born in another country were less likely to be induced, but more likely to have constant electronic fetal monitoring (EFM), to give birth lying on their back or side, and to have an episiotomy. Most women felt that they were treated as an individual and with kindness and respect. However, women born outside Australia were less likely to report being looked after ‘very well’ during labour and birth and to be more critical of some aspects of care. Conclusion In comparing the labour and birth experiences of women born outside the country who spoke another language with native-born English speaking women, the present study presents a largely positive picture. However, there were some marked differences in both clinical and interpersonal aspects of care.

Birth in Brazil: national survey into labour and birth

Background: Caesarean section rates in Brazil have been steadily increasing. In 2009, for the first time, the number of children born by this type of procedure was greater than the number of vaginal births. Caesarean section is associated with a series of adverse effects on the women and newborn, and recent evidence suggests that the increasing rates of prematurity and low birth weight in Brazil are associated to the increasing rates of Caesarean section and labour induction. Methods: Nationwide hospital-based cohort study of postnatal women and their offspring with follow-up at 45 to 60 days after birth. The sample was stratified by geographic macro-region, type of the municipality and by type of hospital governance. The number of postnatal women sampled was 23,940, distributed in 191 municipalities throughout Brazil. Two electronic questionnaires were applied to the postnatal women, one baseline face-to-face and one follow-up telephone interview. Two other questionnaires were filled with information on patients' medical records and to assess hospital facilities. The primary outcome was the percentage of Caesarean sections (total, elective and according to Robson's groups). Secondary outcomes were: post-partum pain; breastfeeding initiation; severe/near miss maternal morbidity; reasons for maternal mortality; prematurity; low birth weight; use of oxygen use after birth and mechanical ventilation; admission to neonatal ICU; stillbirths; neonatal mortality; readmission in hospital; use of surfactant; asphyxia; severe/near miss neonatal morbidity. The association between variables were investigated using bivariate, stratified and multivariate model analyses. Statistical tests were applied according to data distribution and homogeneity of variances of groups to be compared. All analyses were taken into consideration for the complex sample design. Discussion: This study, for the first time, depicts a national panorama of labour and birth outcomes in Brazil. Regardless of the socioeconomic level, demand for Caesarean section appears to be based on the belief that the quality of obstetric care is closely associated to the technology used in labour and birth. Within this context, it was justified to conduct a nationwide study to understand the reasons that lead pregnant women to submit to Caesarean sections and to verify any association between this type of birth and it's consequences on postnatal health.

A mixed-method study to investigate the relationship between the number of social support people present during labour, women’s perceptions and birth outcomes

The birth of a baby is a significant event for women and their families, with the event being influenced by the prevailing social and cultural context. Historically, women throughout the world have given birth at home assisted by other women who helped them cope with the stress of labour and birth. In the middle of the twentieth century, the togetherness, caring and support that were provided within the social and cultural context of childbirth began to change; women in most developed countries, and to some extent in developing countries, laboured and gave birth in institutions that isolated them from the support of family and friends. This practice is referred to as the medical model of childbirth and, over time, birthing within this model has come to be viewed by women as a dehumanising experience. In an attempt to secure a more supportive experience, women began to demand the presence of a supportive companion; namely their partner. This event became the catalyst for a number of studies focusing on different types of support providers and their contribution to the phenomenon of social support during labour. More recently, it has become a common practice for some women to be supported during labour by a number of people from their social network. However, research on the influence of such supportive people on women’s experience of labour and birth and on birth outcomes is scarce. The aim of this study is to examine the influence of various support arrangements from a woman’s family and social network on her experience of labour and birth and on birth outcomes. The mixed-method study was conducted to answer three research questions: 1. Do women with more than one support person present during labour and birth have similar perceptions and experiences of support compared to women with one support person? 2. Do women with more than one support person present during labour and birth have similar birth outcomes compared to women with one support person? 3. Do women with different types of support providers during labour and birth have similar birth outcomes? Methods Phase one of this study developed, pilot tested and administered a newly developed instrument designed to measure women’s perceptions of supportive behaviours provided during labour. Specific birth outcome data were extracted from the medical records. Phase two consisted of in-depth interviews with a sample of women who had completed the survey. Results: The results identified a statistically significant relationship between women’s perceptions of social support and the number of support providers: women supported by one person only rated the supportive behaviours of that person more highly compared to women who were supported by a number of people. The results also identified that women supported by one person used less analgesia. An additional qualitative finding was that some women sacrificed the support of female relatives at the request of their partners. Conclusion: By using a mixed-method approach, this study found that women were selective in their choice of support providers, as they chose individuals with whom they had an enduring affectionate attachment. Women place more emphasis on a support person’s ability to fulfil their attachment needs of close proximity and a sense of security and safety, rather than their ability to provide the expected functional supportive behaviours.

Birth control : to what extent do women report being informed and involved in decisions about pregnancy and birth procedures?

Background: Health policy, guidelines, and standards advocate giving patients comprehensive information and facilitating their involvement in health-related decision-making. Routine assessment of patient reports of these processes is needed. Our objective was to examine decision-making processes, specifically information provision and consumer involvement in decision-making, for nine pregnancy, labour, and birth procedures, as reported by maternity care consumers in Queensland, Australia. Methods: Participants were women who had a live birth in Queensland in a specified time period and were not found to have had a baby that died since birth, who completed the extended Having a Baby in Queensland Survey, 2010 about their maternity care experiences, and who reported at least one of the nine procedures of interest. For each procedure, women answered two questions that measured perceived (i) receipt of information about the benefits and risks of the procedure and (ii) role in decision-making about the procedure. Results: In all, 3,542 eligible women (34.2%) completed the survey. Between 4% (for pre-labour caesarean section) and 60% (for vaginal examination) of women reported not being informed of the benefits and risks of the procedure they experienced. Between 2% (epidural) and 34% (episiotomy) of women reported being unconsulted in decision-making. Over one quarter (26%) of the women who experienced episiotomy reported being neither informed nor consulted. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for interventions that facilitate information provision and consumer involvement in decision-making about several perinatal procedures, especially those performed within the time-limited intrapartum care episode.

Innovative interprofessional teaching session on labour and childbirth for undergraduate medical and midwifery students

There is an increasing recognition of the need to improve interprofessional relationships within clinical practice (Midwifery 2020, 2010). Evidence supports the assertion that healthcare professionals who are able to communicate and work effectively together and who have a mutual respect and understanding for one another’s roles will provide a higher standard of care (McPherson et al, 2001; Miers et al, 2005; Begley, 2008). The joint Royal College of Obstetrics & Gynaecologists(RCOG) / Royal College of Midwives (RCM) report (2008 Page 8) on clinical learning environment and recruitment recommended that “Inter-professional learning strategies should be introduced and supported at an early stage in the medical and midwifery undergraduate students' experience and continued throughout training.” Providing interprofessional education within a University setting offers an opportunity for a non-threatening learning environment where students can develop confidence and build collaborative working relationships with one another (Saxell et al, 2009).Further research supports the influence of effective team working on increased client satisfaction. Additionally it identifies that the integration of interprofessional learning into a curriculum improves students’ abilities to interact professionally and provides a better understanding of role identification within the workplace than students who have only been exposed to uniprofessional education (Meterko et al, 2004; Pollard and Miers, 2008; Siassakos, et al, 2009; Wilhelmsson et al, 2011; Murray-Davis et al, 2012). An interprofessional education indicative has been developed by teaching staff from the School of Nursing and Midwifery and School of Medicine at Queen’s University Belfast. The aim of the collaboration was to enhance interprofessional learning by providing an opportunity for medical students and midwifery students to interact and communicate prior to medical students undertaking their obstetrics and gynaecology placements. This has improved medical students placement experience by facilitating them to learn about the process of birth and familiarisation of the delivery suite environment and it also has the potential to enhance interprofessional relationships. Midwifery students benefit through the provision of an opportunity to teach and facilitate learning in relation to normal labour and birth and has provided them with an opportunity to build stronger and more positive relationships with another profession. This opportunity also provides a positive, confidence building forum where midwifery students utilise teaching and learning strategies which would be transferable to their professional role as registered midwives. The midwifery students were provided with an outline agenda in relation to content for the workshop, but then were allowed creative licence with regard to delivery of the workshop. The interactive workshops are undertaken within the University’s clinical education centre, utilising low fidelity simulation. The sessions are delivered 6 times per year and precede the medical students’ obstetric/gynaecology placement. All 4th year medical and final year midwifery students have an opportunity to participate. Preliminary evaluations of the workshops have been positive from both midwifery and medical students. The teaching sessions provided both midwifery and medical students with an introduction to inter professional learning and gave them an opportunity to learn about and respect each other’s roles. The midwifery students have commented on the enjoyable aspects of team working for preparing for the workshop and also the confidence gained from teaching medical students. The medical students have evaluated the teaching by midwifery students positively and felt that it lowered their anxiety levels going into the labour setting. A number of midwifery and medical students have subsequently worked with one another within the practice setting which has been recognised as beneficial. Both Schools have recognised the benefits of interprofessional education and have subsequently made a commitment to embed it within each curriculum.