Search

Aims: To identify and synthesize the evidence regarding the facilitators and barriers relating to birthing pool use from organizational and multi-professional perspectives. Design: A systematic integrated mixed methods review was conducted. Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMCARE, PROQUEST and Web of Science databases were searched in April 2021, March 2022 and April 2024. We cross-referenced with Google Scholar and undertook reference list searches. Review methods: Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to birthing pool use were mapped and integrated into descriptive statements further synthesized to develop overarching themes. Results: Thirty seven articles (29 studies) were included—quantitative (12), qualitative (8), mixed methods (7), and audits (2), from 12 countries. These included the views of 9,082 multi-professionals (midwives, nurses, obstetricians, neonatologists, students, physicians, maternity support workers, doulas and childbirth educators). Additionally, 285 institutional policies or guidelines were included over 9 papers and 1 economic evaluation. Five themes were generated: The paradox of prescriptiveness, The experienced but elusive practitioner, Advocacy and tensions, Trust or Trepidation and It's your choice, but only if it is a choice. These revealed when personal, contextual, and infrastructural factors were aligned and directed towards the support of birth pool use, birthing pool use was a genuine option. Conversely, the more barriers that women and midwives experienced, the less likely it was a viable option, reducing choice and access to safe analgesia. Conclusion: The findings demonstrated a paradoxical reality of water immersion with each of the five themes detailing how the "swing" within these factors directly affected whether birthing pool use was facilitated or inhibited. Plain English Summary: During childbirth, most women wish to use a pain management technique; some prefer to use medications and others prefer non-medication methods. Another option is to use a birthing pool, larger than a typical bath, that encourages buoyancy and the freedom to move. The warm water can also offer comfort, relaxation and pain relief. Extensive studies have demonstrated birthing pool use during childbirth is safe for mothers and babies. It is associated with reduced medical interventions (e.g. speeding up labour and cuts to the perineum), improved outcomes (e.g. satisfaction, less pain or excessive bleeding after birth). Given these positive outcomes, we wanted to explore any barriers or facilitators for birthing women and people accessing birthing pools so we could help improve access for those wishing to use one. We gathered and assessed the literature to explore these aspects. We included quantitative and qualitative studies exploring the perspectives of different maternity professionals and those of organisations. We reviewed 37 studies from 12 countries (from 2004 to 2020). We found that birthing pool use was a viable option when all maternity professional groups and their organisational guidelines or policies valued and supported its use. Conversely, in other organisations, multiple barriers prevented the use of birthing pools as an equally viable option to medication pain relief options. These barriers were influenced by the beliefs of different maternity professional groups, organisational guidelines or policies (where some were highly restrictive) whether midwives were supported to offer care in birthing pools or whether the midwives had the confidence to do so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Ethical dilemmas at both the individual and structural level are part of the daily work of midwives and gender inequality and injustice can affect women's sexual and reproductive health. Mainstream bioethical theory has been criticized for neglecting women's issues. To ensure women's experiences are addressed, a gender lens on ethics is crucial. Aim: This study develops a theory model by exploring ethical dilemmas related to gender in the context of maternity care from the perspective of midwifery science and feminist ethics. Methods: The research strategy followed a coherent stepwise approach: literature search, thematic analysis, elaboration of a gender ethics protocol, and the integration of various components into a preliminary gender ethics model for midwifery. Findings: A literature search was performed using Scopus and Web of Science to identify ethical dilemmas in maternity care linked to gender and power. The search of articles published between 1996 and 2019 returned 61 abstracts. These abstracts were screened and assigned one of the following themes: The Midwifery Profession, The Rights of the Woman, Fetal Rights Dominate, and Medicalization of Pregnancy and Childbirth. A tentative gender ethics frame was developed and tested on two articles on abortion, one from Denmark and one from Japan. The protocol facilitated the gender analysis of ethical dilemmas related to abortion, which were related to the imbalance of power relations in health care. In the final step, we synthesized the dimensions of gender and power in a gender ethics model for midwifery. Discussion: The gender ethics protocol developed revealed gendered dimensions of ethical dilemmas in midwifery. This gender analysis adds to the understanding of the "do no harm" principle by revealing assumptions and stereotypes that promote unequal power relations. The gender ethics model is an innovative approach that envisions and exposes power imbalance at the micro, meso, and macro levels. Conclusions: The protocol could improve gender competence among researchers, midwives/professionals, and midwifery students throughout the world. Plain Language summary: As gender inequity, gender inequality, and oppression infuse dimensions in all human cultures and societies, not the least in midwifery practice where the layers of injustice affect women during pregnancy and birth in high-, middle-, and low-income countries, the time has come to renew the perspectives of normative ethics. In this study, we explore gender ethical dilemmas unique to maternity care from the perspective of midwifery science and feminist ethics. A literature search uncovered ethical dilemmas in midwifery, and four broad themes were identified: Midwifery Profession, Rights of the Woman, Fetal Rights Dominate, and Medicalization of Pregnancy and Childbirth. Next, we developed a gender ethics protocol suitable for providing gender ethical interpretations of results. The protocol was tested and refined using two articles (one from the Denmark and one from Japan) that address ethical dilemmas of abortion care. The pilot analysis indicates that the autonomy of midwives and their scope of practice might be constrained and that the obstetric medicalized/authoritative knowledge still plays a dominate role in maternity practice. Here, we present an elaborate model, gender ethics model for midwifery (GEMM), developed for midwifery science that can be further refined. The model challenges the views of maternity care and contributes to a deeper understanding of how fluid concepts such as gender and power circulate and influence women's and birthing person's sexual and reproductive health. Statement of significance: Problem or issue Layers of injustice affect women during pregnancy and birth in both high-, middle-, and low-income countries. The time has come to renew the perspectives of normative ethics. What is already known? Globally, ethical dilemmas at both the individual and structural levels pervade the daily work of midwives, but ethical research that includes gender theory in midwifery science is limited. What this paper adds Here, we present a gender ethics protocol and develop an innovative gender theory ethics model for midwifery to improve gender competence among researchers, midwives/professionals, and midwifery students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several recent studies have attempted to measure the prevalence of disrespect and abuse (D&A) of women during childbirth in health facilities. Variations in reported prevalence may be associated with differences in study instruments and data collection methods. This systematic review and comparative analysis of methods aims to aggregate and present lessons learned from published studies that quantified the prevalence of Disrespect and Abuse (D&A) during childbirth. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Five papers met criteria and were included for analysis. We developed an analytical framework depicting the basic elements of epidemiological methodology in prevalence studies and a table of common types of systematic error associated with each of them. We performed a head-to-head comparison of study methods for all five papers. Using these tools, an independent reviewer provided an analysis of the potential for systematic error in the reported prevalence estimates. Results: Sampling techniques, eligibility criteria, categories of D&A selected for study, operational definitions of D&A, summary measures of D&A, and the mode, timing, and setting of data collection all varied in the five studies included in the review. These variations present opportunities for the introduction of biases - in particular selection, courtesy, and recall bias - and challenge the ability to draw comparisons across the studies' results. Conclusion: Our review underscores the need for caution in interpreting or comparing previously reported prevalence estimates of D&A during facility-based childbirth. The lack of standardized definitions, instruments, and study methods used to date in studies designed to quantify D&A in childbirth facilities introduced the potential for systematic error in reported prevalence estimates, and affected their generalizability and comparability. Chief among the lessons to emerge from comparing methods for measuring the prevalence of D&A is recognition of the tension between seeking prevalence measures that are reliable and generalizable, and attempting to avoid loss of validity in the context where the issue is being studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the past decade, the negative impact of disrespectful maternity care on women's utilisation and experiences of facility-based delivery has been well documented. Less is known about midwives' perspectives on these labour ward dynamics. Yet efforts to provide care that satisfies women's psycho-socio-cultural needs rest on midwives' capacity and willingness to provide it. We performed a systematic review of the emerging literature documenting midwives' perspectives to explore the broader drivers of (dis)respectful care during facility-based delivery in the sub-Saharan African context. Methods: Seven databases (CINAHL, PsychINFO, PsychArticles, Embase, Global Health, Maternity and Infant Care and PubMed) were systematically searched from 1990 to May 2018. Primary qualitative studies with a substantial focus on the interpersonal aspects of care were eligible if they captured midwives' voices and perspectives. Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers and PRISMA guidelines were followed. The results and findings from each study were synthesised using an existing conceptual framework of the drivers of disrespectful care. Results: Eleven papers from six countries were included and six main themes were identified. 'Power and control' and 'Maintaining midwives' status' reflected midwives' focus on the micro-level interactions of the mother-midwife dyad. Meso-level drivers of disrespectful care were: the constraints of the 'Work environment and resources'; concerns about 'Midwives' position in the health systems hierarchy'; and the impact of 'Midwives' conceptualisations of respectful maternity care'. An emerging theme outlined the 'Impact on midwives' of (dis)respectful care. Conclusion: We used a theoretically informed conceptual framework to move beyond the micro-level and interrogate the social, cultural and historical factors that underpin (dis)respectful care. Controlling women was a key theme, echoing women's experiences, but midwives paid less attention to the social inequalities that distress women. The synthesis highlighted midwives' low status in the health system hierarchy, while organisational cultures of blame and a lack of consideration for them as professionals effectively constitute disrespect and abuse of these health workers. Broader, interdisciplinary perspectives on the wider drivers of midwives' disrespectful attitudes and behaviours are crucial if efforts to improve the maternity care environment - for women and midwives - are to succeed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many women use pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief during childbirth. Evidence from Cochrane reviews shows that effective pain relief is not always associated with high maternal satisfaction scores. However, understanding women's views is important for good quality maternity care provision. We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis of women's views and experiences of pharmacological (epidural, opioid analgesia) and non-pharmacological (relaxation, massage techniques) pain relief options, to understand what affects women's decisions and choices and to inform guidelines, policy, and practice. Methods: We searched seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, AJOL), tracked citations and checked references. We used thematic and meta-ethnographic techniques for analysis purposes, and GRADE-CERQual tool to assess confidence in review findings. We developed review findings for each method. We then re-analysed the review findings thematically to highlight similarities and differences in women's accounts of different pain relief methods. Results: From 11,782 hits, we screened full 58 papers. Twenty-four studies provided findings for the synthesis: epidural (n = 12), opioids (n = 3), relaxation (n = 8) and massage (n = 4) – all conducted in upper-middle and high-income countries (HMICs). Re-analysis of the review findings produced five key themes. 'Desires for pain relief' illuminates different reasons for using pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief. 'Impact on pain' describes varying levels of effectiveness of the methods used. 'Influence and experience of support' highlights women's positive or negative experiences of support from professionals and/or birth companions. 'Influence on focus and capabilities' illustrates that all pain relief methods can facilitate maternal control, but some found non-pharmacological techniques less effective than anticipated, and others reported complications associated with medication use. Finally, 'impact on wellbeing and health' reports that whilst some women were satisfied with their pain relief method, medication was associated with negative self-reprisals, whereas women taught relaxation techniques often continued to use these methods with beneficial outcomes. Conclusion: Women report mixed experiences of different pain relief methods. Pharmacological methods can reduce pain but have negative side-effects. Non-pharmacological methods may not reduce labour pain but can facilitate bonding with professionals and birth supporters. Women need information on risks and benefits of all available pain relief methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper responds to the global call to action for respectful maternity care (RMC) by examining whether and how gender inequalities and unequal power dynamics in the health system undermine quality of care or obstruct women’s capacities to exercise their rights as both users and providers of maternity care. Methods: We conducted a mapping review of peer-reviewed and gray literature to examine whether gender inequality is a determinant of mistreatment during childbirth. A search for peer-reviewed articles published between January 1995 and September 2017 in PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases, supplemented by an appeal to experts in the field, yielded 127 unique articles. We reviewed these articles using a gender analysis framework that categorizes gender inequalities into four key domains: access to assets, beliefs and perceptions, practices and participation, and institutions, laws, and policies. A total of 37 articles referred to gender inequalities in the four domains and were included in the analysis. Results: The mapping indicates that there have been important advances in documenting mistreatment at the health facility, but less attention has been paid to addressing the associated structural gender inequalities. The limited evidence available shows that pregnant and laboring women lack information and financial assets, voice, and agency to exercise their rights to RMC. Women who defy traditional feminine stereotypes of chastity and serenity often experience mistreatment by providers as a result. At the same time, mistreatment of women inside and outside of the health facility is normalized and accepted, including by women themselves. As for health care providers, gender discrimination is manifested through degrading working conditions, lack of respect for their abilities, violence and harassment,, lack of mobility in the community, lack of voice within their work setting, and limited training opportunities and professionalization. All of these inequalities erode their ability to deliver high quality care. Conclusion: While the evidence base is limited, the literature clearly shows that gender inequality—for both clients and providers—contributes to mistreatment and abuse in maternity care. Researchers, advocates, and practitioners need to further investigate and build upon lessons from the broader gender equality, violence prevention, and rights-based health movements to expand the agenda on mistreatment in childbirth and develop effective interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mistreatment of women during facility-based childbirth has become a significant public health issue globally and is gaining worldwide attention. This systematic review of quantitative studies aimed to estimate the prevalence of mistreatment women may experience throughout the birthing process in health facilities in Arab countries. The review also aimed to identify the types of mistreatment, terminology, tools, and methods used to address this topic. Methodology: The search was conducted using three electronic databases: "PubMed," "Embase," and "CINAHL" in May 2020. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included and assessed for risk of bias. The analysis was conducted based on the evidence-based typology developed by Bohren et al. as a guide to try to estimate the prevalence of mistreatment. Results: Eleven studies out of 174 were included. The included studies belonged to only seven Arab countries out of 22 Arab countries. The mistreatment of women during childbirth is still new in the region. Searching within the included studies yielded diverse and indirect terms that were a proxy for the word mistreatment. These terms were not comprehensive to cover different aspects of the topic. The tools that were used to measure the terms widely varied.. Moreover, it was not possible to estimate the prevalence of mistreatment of women due to high heterogeneity among the 11 studies. Conclusion: The topic of mistreatment of women in Arab countries was not adequately addressed in the studies included in this review. More research on this topic is recommended due to its importance in improving maternal health in the region. However, a standardized and comprehensive terminology for mistreatment of women, a standardized tool, and a standardized methodology are recommended to enable comparability between results and allow pooling to estimate the prevalence. Plain Language Summary: Childbirth is a highly personal and central event in every mother's life. However, several studies have documented unpleasant behaviors that women may face throughout the birthing process in health facilities. These behaviors may affect the whole birthing experience, affecting the women's decision to use health facilities for childbirth in future pregnancies. Therefore, the mistreatment of women during facility-based delivery has become a genuine and global public health issue. There is limited data on this issue in Arab countries. This which triggered the necessity of conducting a systematic review that aimed to estimate the prevalence of mistreatment of women and better understand the burden of this issue regionally, thus reflecting the image on how it might be in Palestine. The search was conducted using three databases and was limited to studies published in English and Arabic, with no restrictions on the publication year. It included all observational studies that reported the prevalence of women's mistreatment throughout the birthing process in Arab countries. Eleven studies were included in this review, and the risk of bias assessed. All were cross-sectional studies. They were done in seven countries out of the 22 Arab countries. It was not possible to estimate the prevalence of mistreatment because the terms, tools, and methodological characteristics varied widely. Further research on the mistreatment of women during childbirth in Arab countries using standardized terminology, tool and methodology is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Reproductive Health is the property of BioMed Central and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Reproductive Health is the property of BioMed Central and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: A negative experience in childbirth is associated with chronic maternal morbidities. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify currently available successful interventions to create a positive perception of childbirth experience which can prevent psychological birth trauma. Methods: Randomized controlled trials of interventions in pregnancy or labour which aimed to improve childbirth experience versus usual care were identified from 1994 to September 2016. Low risk pregnant or childbearing women were chosen as the study population. PEDRO scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool were used for quality assessment. Pooled effect estimates were calculated when more than two studies had similar intervention. If it was not possible to include a study in the meta-analysis, its data were summarized narratively. Results: After screening of 7832 titles/abstracts, 20 trials including 22,800 participants from 12 countries were included. Successful strategies to create a positive perception of childbirth experience were supporting women during birth (Risk Ratio = 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07 to 1.71), intrapartum care with minimal intervention (Risk Ratio = 1.29, 95% Confidence Interval:1.15 to 1.45) and birth preparedness and readiness for complications (Mean Difference = 3.27, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.66 to 5.88). Most of the relaxation and pain relief strategies were not successful to create a positive birth experience (Mean Difference = − 2.64, 95% Confidence Intervention: − 6.80 to 1.52). Conclusion: The most effective strategies to create a positive birth experience are supporting women during birth, intrapartum care with minimal intervention and birth preparedness. This study might be helpful in clinical approaches and designing future studies about prevention of the negative and traumatic birth experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]