Search

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) Labour Care Guide (LCG) is a paper-based labour monitoring tool designed to facilitate the implementation of WHO's latest guidelines for effective, respectful care during labour and childbirth. Implementing the LCG into routine intrapartum care requires a strategy that improves healthcare provider practices during labour and childbirth. Such a strategy might optimize the use of Caesarean section (CS), along with potential benefits on the use of other obstetric interventions, maternal and perinatal health outcomes, and women's experience of care. However, the effects of a strategy to implement the LCG have not been evaluated in a randomised trial. This study aims to: (1) develop and optimise a strategy for implementing the LCG (formative phase); and (2) To evaluate the implementation of the LCG strategy compared with usual care (trial phase). Methods: In the formative phase, we will co-design the LCG strategy with key stakeholders informed by facility assessments and provider surveys, which will be field tested in one hospital. The LCG strategy includes a LCG training program, ongoing supportive supervision from senior clinical staff, and audit and feedback using the Robson Classification. We will then conduct a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial in four public hospitals in India, to evaluate the effect of the LCG strategy intervention compared to usual care (simplified WHO partograph). The primary outcome is the CS rate in nulliparous women with singleton, term, cephalic pregnancies in spontaneous labour (Robson Group 1). Secondary outcomes include clinical and process of care outcomes, as well as women's experience of care outcomes. We will also conduct a process evaluation during the trial, using standardized facility assessments, in-depth interviews and surveys with providers, audits of completed LCGs, labour ward observations and document reviews. An economic evaluation will consider implementation costs and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: Findings of this trial will guide clinicians, administrators and policymakers on how to effectively implement the LCG, and what (if any) effects the LCG strategy has on process of care, health and experience outcomes. The trial findings will inform the rollout of LCG internationally. Trial registration: CTRI/2021/01/030695 (Protocol version 1.4, 25 April 2022). Plain language summary: The new WHO Labour Care Guide (LCG) is an innovative partograph that emphasises women-centred, evidence-based care during labour and childbirth. Together with clinicians working at four hospitals in India, we will develop and test a strategy to implement the LCG into routine care in labour wards of these hospitals. We will use a randomised trial design where this LCG strategy is introduced sequentially in each of the four hospitals, in a random order. We will collect data on all women giving birth and their newborns during this period and analyse whether the LCG strategy has any effects on the use of Caesarean section, women's and newborn's health outcomes, and women's experiences during labour and childbirth. While the trial is being conducted, we will also collect qualitative and quantitative data from doctors, nurses and midwives working in these hospitals, to understand their perspectives and experiences of using the LCG in their day-to-day work. In addition, we will collect economic data to understand how much the LCG strategy costs, and how much money it might save if it is effective. Through this study, our international collaboration will generate critical evidence and innovative tools to support implementation of the LCG in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Caesarean section is recommended in situations in which vaginal birth presents a greater likelihood of adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes than normal. However, it is associated with a higher risk of complications, especially when performed without a clear medical indication. Since labour attendants have no standardised clinical method to assist in this decision, statistical tools developed based on multiple labour variables may be an alternative. The objective of this paper was to develop and evaluate the accuracy of models for caesarean section prediction using maternal and foetal characteristics collected at admission and through labour. Method: This is a secondary analysis of the World Health Organization's Better Outcomes in Labour Difficulty prospective cohort study in two sub-Saharan African countries. Data were collected from women admitted for labour and childbirth in 13 hospitals in Nigeria as well as Uganda between 2014 and 2015. We applied logistic regression to develop different models to predict caesarean section, based on the time when intrapartum assessment was made. To evaluate discriminatory capacity of the various models, we calculated: area under the curve, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity and specificity. Results: A total of 8957 pregnant women with 12.67% of caesarean births were used for model development. The model based on labour admission characteristics showed an area under the curve of 78.70%, sensitivity of 63.20%, specificity of 78.68% and accuracy of 76.62%. On the other hand, the models that applied intrapartum assessments performed better, with an area under the curve of 93.66%, sensitivity of 80.12%, specificity of 89.26% and accuracy of 88.03%. Conclusion: It is possible to predict the likelihood of intrapartum caesarean section with high accuracy based on labour characteristics and events. However, the accuracy of this prediction is considerably higher when based on information obtained throughout the course of labour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether women should be able to decide on mode of birth in healthcare settings has been a topic of debate in the last few decades. In the context of a marked increase in global caesarean section rates, a central dilemma is whether pregnant women should be able to request this procedure without medical indication. Since 2015, Law 25,929 of Humanised Birth is in place in Argentina. This study aims at understanding the power relations between healthcare providers, pregnant women, and labour companions regarding decision-making on mode of birth in this new legal context. To do so, central concepts of power theory are used. Methods: This study uses a qualitative design. Twenty-six semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers were conducted in five maternity wards in different regions of Argentina. Participants were purposively selected using heterogeneity sampling and included obstetrician/gynaecologists (heads of department, specialists working in 24-h shifts, and residents) and midwives where available. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to inductively develop themes and categories. Results: Three themes were developed: (1) Healthcare providers reconceptualize decision-making processes of mode of birth to make women's voices matter; (2) Healthcare providers feel powerless against women's request to choose mode of birth; (3) Healthcare providers struggle to redirect women's decision regarding mode of birth. An overarching theme was built to explain the power relations between healthcare providers, women and labour companions: Healthcare providers' loss of beneficial power in decision-making on mode of birth. Conclusions: Our analysis highlights the complexity of the healthcare provider-woman interaction in a context in which women are, in practice, allowed to choose mode of birth. Even though healthcare providers claim to welcome women being an active part of the decision-making processes, they feel powerless when women make autonomous decisions regarding mode of birth. They perceive themselves to be losing beneficial power in the eyes of patients and consider fruitful communication on risks and benefits of each mode of birth to not always be possible. At the same time, providers perform an increasing number of CSs without medical indication when it is convenient for them, which suggests that paternalistic practices are still in place. Plain Language Summary: In the last few decades, there has been a debate on whether women should be able to choose if they haver a vaginal birth or a caesarean section. This debate has been framed by the fact that an increasing number of caesarean sections are being performed. Since 2015, Argentina has a Law of Humanised Birth. We conducted a study to understand the power relations between healthcare providers, pregnant women and labour companions in decision making on mode of birth in this new legal context. To do so, we used central concepts of power theory. We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers in five maternity wards of Argentina. The interviewees were obstetrician/gynaecologists (heads of department, specialists working in 24-h shifts, and residents) and midwives where available. We used thematic analysis to build themes from the data. We discovered that healthcare providers perceive themselves to be losing beneficial power in decision-making on mode of birth. Even though they claim to want women to make autonomous decisions, they feel frustrated when this happens. They also perceive it to be more difficult to communicate with patients regarding the risks and benefits of vaginal birth and caesarean section. At the same time, providers carry out an increasing number of CSs without medical indication when it is convenient for them, which suggests that paternalistic practices are still in place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Caesarean sections (CSs) are associated with increased maternal and perinatal morbidity, yet rates continue to increase within most countries. Effective interventions are required to reduce the number of non-medically indicated CSs and improve outcomes for women and infants. This paper reports findings of a systematic review of literature related to maternity service organisational interventions that have a primary intention of improving CS rates.Method: A three-phase search strategy was implemented to identify studies utilising organisational interventions to improve CS rates in maternity services. The database search (including Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Maternity and Infant Care, EMBASE and SCOPUS) was restricted to peer-reviewed journal articles published from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2017. Reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies were also searched. Primary outcomes were overall, planned, and unplanned CS rates. Secondary outcomes included a suite of birth outcomes. A series of meta-analyses were performed in RevMan, separated by type of organisational intervention and outcome of interest. Summary risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were presented as the effect measure. Effect sizes were pooled using a random-effects model.Results: Fifteen articles were included in the systematic review, nine of which were included in at least one meta-analysis. Results indicated that, compared with women allocated to usual care, women allocated to midwife-led models of care implemented across pregnancy, labour and birth, and the postnatal period were, on average, less likely to experience CS (overall) (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96), planned CS (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), and episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.95). Narratively, audit and feedback, and a hospital policy of mandatory second opinion for CS, were identified as interventions that have potential to reduce CS rates.Conclusion: Maternity service leaders should consider the adoption of midwife-led models of care across the maternity episode within their organisations, particularly for women classified as low-risk. Additional studies are required that utilise either audit and feedback, or a hospital policy of mandatory second opinion for CS, to facilitate the quantification of intervention effects within future reviews.Prospero Registration: CRD42016039458 ; prospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Childbirth confidence is an important marker of women's coping abilities during labour and birth. This study investigated socio-demographic, obstetric and psychological factors affecting self-efficacy in childbearing women. Method: This paper presents a secondary analysis of data collected as part of the BELIEF study (Birth Emotions - Looking to Improve Expectant Fear). Women (n = 1410) were recruited during pregnancy (⩽24 weeks gestation). The survey included socio-demographic details (such as age and partner support); obstetric details including parity, birth preference, and pain; and standardised psychological measures: CBSEI (Childbirth Self-efficacy Inventory), W-DEQ A (childbirth fear) and EPDS (depressive symptoms). Variables were tested against CBSEI first stage of labour sub-scales (outcome expectancy and self-efficacy expectancy) according to parity. Results: CBSEI total mean score was 443 (SD = 112.2). CBSEI, W-DEQ, EPDS scores were highly correlated. Regardless of parity, women who reported low childbirth knowledge, who preferred a caesarean section, and had high W-DEQ and EPDS scores reported lower self-efficacy. There were no differences for nulliparous or multiparous women on outcome expectancy, but multiparous women had higher self-efficacy scores (p < .001). Multiparous women whose partner was unsupportive were more likely to report low self-efficacy expectancy (p < .05). Experiencing moderate pain in pregnancy was significantly associated with low self-efficacy expectancy in both parity groups, as well as low outcome expectancy in nulliparous women only. Fear correlated strongly with low childbirth self-efficacy. Conclusion: Few studies have investigated childbirth self-efficacy according to parity. Although multiparous women reported higher birth confidence significant obstetric and psychological differences were found. Addressing women's physical and emotional wellbeing and perceptions of the upcoming birth may highlight their level of self-efficacy for birth. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Controlled Trials Registry ACTRN12612000526875, 17th May 2012. [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.)

Background: Although interventions in childbirth are important in order to prevent neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, non-indicated use may cause avoidable harm. Regional variations in intervention rates, which cannot be explained by maternal characteristics, may indicate over- and underuse. The aim of this study is to explore regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands and their associations with interventions and adverse outcomes, controlled for maternal characteristics.Methods: Childbirth intervention rates were compared between twelve Dutch regions, using data from the national perinatal birth register for 2010-2013. All single childbirths from 37 weeks' gestation onwards were included. Primary outcomes were induction and augmentation of labour, pain medication, instrumental birth, caesarean section (prelabour, intrapartum) and paediatric involvement. Secondary outcomes were adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for maternal characteristics. Associations were expressed in Spearman's rank correlation coefficients.Results: Most variation was found for type of pain medication and paediatric involvement. Epidural analgesia rates varied from between 12 and 38% (nulliparous) and from between 5 and 14% (multiparous women). These rates were negatively correlated with rates of other pharmacological pain relief, which varied from between 15 and 43% (nulliparous) and from between 10 and 27% (multiparous). Rates of paediatric involvement varied from between 37 and 60% (nulliparous) and from between 26 and 43% (multiparous). For instrumental vaginal births, rates varied from between 16 and 19% (nulliparous) and from between 3 and 4% (multiparous). For intrapartum caesarean section, the variation was 13-15% and 5-6%, respectively. A positive correlation was found between intervention rates in midwife-led and obstetrician-led care at the onset of labour within the same region. Adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes were not lower in regions with higher intervention rates. Higher augmentation of labour rates correlated with higher rates of severe postpartum haemorrhage.Conclusions: Most variation was found for type of pain medication and paediatric involvement, and least for instrumental vaginal births and intrapartum caesarean sections. Care providers and policy makers should critically audit remarkable variations, since these may be unwarranted. Limited variation for some interventions may indicate consensus for their use. Further research should focus on variations in evidence-based interventions and indications for the use of interventions in childbirth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]