Search

BackgroundCommunity-based doulas share the same cultural, linguistic, ethnic backgrounds or social experiences as the women they support. Community-based doulas may be able to bridge gaps for migrant and refugee women in maternity settings in high-income countries (HICs). The aim of this review was to explore key stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of community-based doula programmes for migrant and refugee women during labour and birth in HICs, and identify factors affecting implementation and sustainability of such programmes.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-method systematic review, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase and grey literature databases from inception to 20th January 2022. Primary qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies focusing on stakeholders’ perspectives and experiences of community-based doula support during labour and birth in any HIC and any type of health facility were eligible for inclusion. We used a narrative synthesis approach to analysis and GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in qualitative findings.ResultsTwelve included studies were from four countries (USA, Sweden, England and Australia). There were 26 findings categorised under three domains: (1) community-based doulas’ role in increasing capacity of existing maternity services; (2) impact on migrant and refugee women’s experiences and health; and (3) factors associated with implementing and sustaining a community-based doula programme.ConclusionCommunity-based doula programmes can provide culturally-responsive care to migrant and refugee women in HICs. These findings can inform community-based doula organisations, maternity healthcare services and policymakers. Further exploration of the factors that impact programme implementation, sustainability, strategic partnership potential and possible wider-reaching benefits is needed.

IntroductionWHO recommends that all women have the option to have a companion of their choice throughout labour and childbirth. Despite clear benefits of labour companionship, including better birth experiences and reduced caesarean section, labour companionship is not universally implemented. In Thailand, there are no policies for public hospitals to support companionship. This study aims to understand factors affecting implementation of labour companionship in Thailand.MethodsThis is formative qualitative research to inform the ‘Appropriate use of caesarean section through QUALIty DECision-making by women and providers’ (QUALI-DEC) study, to design, adapt and implement a strategy to optimise use of caesarean section. We use in-depth interviews and readiness assessments to explore perceptions of healthcare providers, women and potential companions about labour companionship in eight Thai public hospitals. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis, and narrative summaries of the readiness assessment were generated. Factors potentially affecting implementation were mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation behaviour change model (COM-B).Results127 qualitative interviews and eight readiness assessments are included in this analysis. The qualitative findings were grouped in four themes: benefits of labour companions, roles of labour companions, training for labour companions and factors affecting implementation. The findings showed that healthcare providers, women and their relatives all had positive attitudes towards having labour companions. The readiness assessment highlighted implementation challenges related to training the companion, physical space constraints, overcrowding and facility policies, reiterated by the qualitative reports.DiscussionIf labour companions are well-trained on how to best support women, help them to manage pain and engage with healthcare teams, it may be a feasible intervention to implement in Thailand. However, key barriers to introducing labour companionship must be addressed to maximise the likelihood of success mainly related to training and space. These findings will be integrated into the QUALI-DEC implementation strategies.

IntroductionA collaborative (midwife-obstetrician) model of intrapartum care (CMIC) is associated with lower caesarean section (CS) rates than physician-led models. In 2019, the largest private maternity hospital in Latin America (14.000 deliveries/year, 89% CS) created a quality improvement initiative to optimise intrapartum care and safely reduce CS in low-risk women managed by its internal team of healthcare providers (HCP). We conducted formative research to identify potential barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a CMIC.MethodsThree groups of stakeholders participated in focus groups and interviews: hospital managers and clinical coordinators, HCP working in labour/delivery wards and pregnant women intending to give birth in the hospital. We explored participants’ views about the acceptability of implementing a CMIC where a nurse-midwife (NM) on shift would be the main intrapartum HCP, with continuous support/supervision of a dedicated, in-house, obstetrician-gynaecologist (OB-GYN). A thematic analysis approach was used.Results12 HCPs, 5 clinical coordinators, 2 hospital managers and 7 women participated. OB-GYNs, coordinators and managers highlighted health system, organisational and structural factors (NMs’ limited experience/skills, professional roles, financial reimbursement) as potential barriers. NMs identified logistical and human resources as additional barriers. Women viewed the CMIC with perplexity and insecurity because of cultural beliefs about the dominant role of OB-GYNs, and limited information about NM’s capabilities. All professionals agreed that women’s acceptance of a CMIC will require educational interventions and communication strategies to inform potential users about the advantages and safety of this model.ConclusionThere are important barriers and facilitators to implement a CMIC in a private Brazilian maternity hospital. Factors related to health system structure and organisation may have the greatest impact. A CMIC is more likely to succeed if stakeholders’ concerns about responsibilities, power and financial revenues are addressed, and educational interventions targeted at users are deployed prior to its implementation.

BackgroundPrevious research on mistreatment of women during childbirth has focused on physical and verbal abuse, neglect and stigmatisation. However, other manifestations of mistreatment, such as during vaginal examinations, are relatively underexplored. This study explores four types of mistreatment of women during vaginal examinations: (1) non-consented care, (2) sharing of private information, (3) exposure of genitalia and (4) exposure of breasts.MethodsA secondary analysis of data from the WHO multicountry study ‘How Women Are Treated During Childbirth’ was conducted. The study used direct, continuous labour observations of women giving birth in facilities in Ghana, Guinea and Nigeria. Descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to describe the different types of mistreatment of women during vaginal examinations and associated privacy measures (ie, availability of curtains).ResultsOf the 2016 women observed, 1430 (70.9%) underwent any vaginal examination. Across all vaginal examinations, 842/1430 (58.9%) women were observed to receive non-consented care; 233/1430 (16.4%) women had their private information shared; 397/1430 (27.8%) women had their genitalia exposed; and 356/1430 (24.9%) had their breasts exposed. The observed prevalence of mistreatment during vaginal examinations varied across countries. There were country-level differences in the association between absence of privacy measures and mistreatment. Absence of privacy measures was associated with sharing of private information (Ghana: adjusted OR (AOR) 3.8, 95% CI 1.6 to 8.9; Nigeria: AOR 4.9, 95% CI 1.9 to 12.7), genitalia exposure (Ghana: AOR 6.7, 95% CI 2.9 to 14.9; Nigeria: AOR 6.5, 95% CI 2.9 to 14.5), breast exposure (Ghana: AOR 5.9, 95% CI 2.8 to 12.9; Nigeria: AOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.9) and non-consented vaginal examination (Ghana: AOR 2.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 4.7; Guinea: AOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.38).ConclusionOur results highlight the need to ensure better communication and consent processes for vaginal examination during childbirth. In some settings, measures such as availability of curtains were helpful to reduce women’s exposure and sharing of private information, but context-specific interventions will be required to achieve respectful maternity care globally.

IntroductionMistreatment of women during childbirth is increasingly recognised as a significant issue globally. Research and programmatic efforts targeting this phenomenon have been limited by a lack of validated measurement tools. This study aimed to develop a set of concise, valid and reliable multidimensional measures for mistreatment using labour observations applicable across multiple settings.MethodsData from continuous labour observations of 1974 women in Nigeria (n=407), Ghana (n=912) and Guinea (n=655) were used from the cross-sectional WHO’s multicountry study ‘How women are treated during facility-based childbirth’ (2016–2018). Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to develop a scale measuring interpersonal abuse. Two indexes were developed through a modified Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development approach for generating composite indexes. Measures were evaluated for performance, validity and internal reliability.ResultsThree mistreatment measures were developed: a 7-item Interpersonal Abuse Scale, a 3-item Exams & Procedures Index and a 12-item Unsupportive Birth Environment Index. Factor analysis results showed a consistent unidimensional factor structure for the Interpersonal Abuse Scale in all three countries based on factor loadings and interitem correlations, indicating good structural construct validity. The scale had a reliability coefficient of 0.71 in Nigeria and approached 0.60 in Ghana and Guinea. Low correlations (Spearman correlation range: −0.06–0.19; p≥0.05) between mistreatment measures supported our decision to develop three separate measures. Predictive criterion validation yielded mixed results across countries. Both items within measures and measure scores were internally consistent across countries; each item co-occurred with other items in a measure, and scores consistently distinguished between ‘high’ and ‘low’ mistreatment levels.ConclusionThe set of concise, comprehensive multidimensional measures of mistreatment can be used in future research and quality improvement initiatives targeting mistreatment to quantify burden, identify risk factors and determine its impact on health and well-being outcomes. Further validation and reliability testing of the measures in other contexts is needed.

BackgroundAccountability for mistreatment during facility-based childbirth requires valid tools to measure and compare birth experiences. We analyse the WHO ‘How women are treated during facility-based childbirth’ community survey to test whether items mapping the typology of mistreatment function as scales and to create brief item sets to capture mistreatment by domain.MethodsThe cross-sectional community survey was conducted at up to 8 weeks post partum among women giving birth at hospitals in Ghana, Guinea, Myanmar and Nigeria. The survey contained items assessing physical abuse, verbal abuse, stigma, failure to meet professional standards, poor rapport with healthcare workers, and health system conditions and constraints. For all domains except stigma, we applied item-response theory to assess item fit and correlation within domain. We tested shortened sets of survey items for sensitivity in detecting mistreatment by domain. Where items show concordance and scale reliability ≥0.60, we assessed convergent validity with dissatisfaction with care and agreement of scale scores between brief and full versions.Results2672 women answered over 70 items on mistreatment during childbirth. Reliability exceeded 0.60 in all countries for items on poor rapport with healthcare workers and in three countries for items on failure to meet professional standards; brief scales generally showed high agreement with longer versions and correlation with dissatisfaction. Brief item sets were ≥85% sensitive in detecting mistreatment in each country, over 90% for domains of physical abuse and health system conditions and constraints.ConclusionBrief scales to measure two domains of mistreatment are largely comparable with longer versions and can be informative for these four distinct settings. Brief item sets efficiently captured prevalence of mistreatment in the five domains analysed; stigma items can be used and adapted in full. Item sets are suitable for confirmation by context and implementation to increase accountability and inform efforts to eliminate mistreatment during childbirth.