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]

Background: Routine health facility data are an important source of health information in resource-limited settings. Regular quality assessments are necessary to improve the reliability of routine data for different purposes, including estimating facility-based maternal mortality. This study aimed to assess the quality of routine data on deliveries, livebirths and maternal deaths in Kampala City, Uganda. Methods: We reviewed routine health facility data from the district health information system (DHIS2) for 2016 to 2021. This time period included an upgrade of DHIS2, resulting in two datasets (2016–2019 and 2020–2021) that were managed separately. We analysed data for all facilities that reported at least one delivery in any of the six years, and for a subset of facilities designated to provide emergency obstetric care (EmOC). We adapted the World Health Organization data quality review framework to assess completeness and internal consistency of the three data elements, using 2019 and 2021 as reference years. Primary data were collected to verify reporting accuracy in four purposively selected EmOC facilities. Data were disaggregated by facility level and ownership. Results: We included 255 facilities from 2016 to 2019 and 247 from 2020 to 2021; of which 30% were EmOC facilities. The overall completeness of data for deliveries and livebirths ranged between 53% and 55%, while it was < 2% for maternal deaths (98% of monthly values were zero). Among EmOC facilities, completeness was higher for deliveries and livebirths at 80%; and was < 6% for maternal deaths. For the whole sample, the prevalence of outliers for all three data elements was < 2%. Inconsistencies over time were mostly observed for maternal deaths, with the highest difference of 96% occurring in 2021. Conclusions: Routine data from childbirth facilities in Kampala were generally suboptimal, but the quality was better in EmOC facilities. Given likely underreporting of maternal deaths, further efforts to verify and count all facility-related maternal deaths are essential to accurately estimate facility-based maternal mortality. Data reliability could be enhanced by improving reporting practices in EmOC facilities and streamlining reporting processes in private-for-profit facilities. Further qualitative studies should identify critical points where data are compromised, and data quality assessments should consider service delivery standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mistreatment during childbirth is a growing concern worldwide, especially in developing countries, such as Iran. In response, we launched a comprehensive implementation research (IR) project to reduce mistreatment during childbirth and enhance positive birth experiences in birth facilities. This study identified the challenges of implementing a multi-level intervention to reduce mistreatment of women during childbirth using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Methods: An exploratory qualitative study, involving 30 in-depth interviews, was conducted between July 2022 and February 2023. Participants included a purposive sample of key stakeholders at different levels of the health system (macro: Ministry of Health and Medical Education; meso: universities of medical sciences and health services; and micro: hospitals) with sufficient knowledge, direct experience, and/or collaboration in the implementation of the studied interventions. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded using directed qualitative content analysis (CFIR constructs) in MAXQDA 18. Results: The identified challenges were: (1) individual level (childbirth preparation classes: e.g., adaptability, design quality and packaging, cosmopolitanism; presence of birth companions: e.g., patient needs and resources, structural characteristics, culture); (2) healthcare provider level (integrating respectful maternity care into in-service training: e.g., relative priority, access to knowledge and information, reflecting and evaluating); (3) hospital level (evaluating the performance of maternity healthcare providers: e.g., executing, external policies and incentives); and (4) national health system level (implementation of pain relief during childbirth guidelines: e.g., networks and communications, patient needs and resources, executing, reflecting and evaluating). Conclusions: This study provides a clear understanding of the challenges of implementing a multi-level intervention to reduce mistreatment of women during childbirth and highlights potential implications for policy makers and practitioners of maternal health programs. We encourage them to take the lessons learned from this study and revise their current programs and policies regarding the quality of maternity care by focusing on the identified challenges. Plain English summary: Evidence suggests that mistreatment during childbirth is a growing concern worldwide, especially in developing countries, such as Iran. In this qualitative study, through 30 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders at different levels of the health system (macro: Ministry of Health and Medical Education; meso: universities of medical sciences and health services; and micro: hospitals), we identified the challenges of implementing a multi-level intervention to reduce mistreatment of women during childbirth using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The data were analyzed using directed content analysis and a deductive approach in MAXQDA 18 software. The identified challenges were: (1) individual level (childbirth preparation classes: e.g., adaptability; presence of birth companions: e.g., patient needs and resources); (2) healthcare provider level (integrating respectful maternity care into in-service training: e.g., relative priority); (3) hospital level (evaluating the performance of maternity healthcare providers: e.g., executing, external policies and incentives); and (4) national health system level (implementation of pain relief childbirth guidelines: e.g., networks and communications). This study provides a clear understanding of the challenges of implementing a multi-level intervention to reduce mistreatment of women during childbirth; and highlights potential implications for policy makers and practitioners of maternal health programs. [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: Analyses of factors that determine quality of perinatal care consistently rely on clinical markers, while failing to assess experiential outcomes. Understanding how model of care and birth setting influence experiences of respect, autonomy, and decision making, is essential for comprehensive assessment of quality. Methods: We examined responses (n = 1771) to an online cross-sectional national survey capturing experiences of perinatal care in the United States. We used validated patient-oriented measures and scales to assess four domains of experience: (1) decision-making, (2) respect, (3) mistreatment, and (4) time spent during visits. We categorized the provider type and birth setting into three groups: midwife at community birth, midwife at hospital-birth, and physician at hospital-birth. For each group, we used multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics, to estimate the odds of experiential outcomes in all the four domains. Results: Compared to those cared for by physicians in hospitals, individuals cared for by midwives in community settings had more than five times the odds of experiencing higher autonomy (aOR: 5.22, 95% CI: 3.65–7.45), higher respect (aOR: 5.39, 95% CI: 3.72–7.82) and lower odds of mistreatment (aOR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10–0.26). We found significant differences across birth settings: participants cared for by midwives in the community settings had significantly better experiential outcomes than those in the hospital settings: high- autonomy (aOR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.66–4.27), respect (aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 2.81–6.14), mistreatment (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11–0.34), time spent (aOR: 8.06, 95% CI: 4.26–15.28). Conclusion: Participants reported better experiential outcomes when cared for by midwives than by physicians. And for those receiving midwifery care, the quality of experiential outcomes was significantly higher in community settings than in hospital settings. Care settings matter and structures of hospital-based care may impair implementation of the person-centered midwifery care model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]