Search

In the Netherlands adverse perinatal outcomes are also associated with non-medical factors which vary across geographical locations. This study analyses the presence of non-medical vulnerabilities in pregnant women in two regions with high numbers of psychosocial adversity using the same definition for vulnerability in both regions. A register study was performed in 2 regions. Files from women in midwife-led care were analyzed using a standardized case report form addressing non-medical vulnerability based on the Rotterdam definition for vulnerability: measurement A in Groningen (n = 500), measurement B in South-Limburg (n = 538). Only in South-Limburg a second measurement was done after implementing an identification tool for vulnerability (C (n = 375)). In both regions about 10% of pregnant women had one or more urgent vulnerabilities and almost all of these women had an accumulation of several urgent and non-urgent vulnerabilities. Another 10% of women had an accumulation of three or more non-urgent vulnerabilities. This study showed that by using the Rotterdam definition of vulnerability in both regions about 20% of pregnant women seem to live in such a vulnerable situation that they may need psychosocial support. The definition seems a good tool to determine vulnerability. However, without considering protective factors it is difficult to establish precisely women's vulnerability. Research should reveal whether relevant women receive support and whether this approach contributes to better perinatal and child outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2018, the Dutch government initiated the Solid Start program to provide each child with the best start in life. Key program elements are a biopsychosocial perspective on pregnancy and children's development and stimulating local collaborations between social and health domains, with a specific focus on (future) families in vulnerable situations. Two programs for interprofessional collaboration between maternity and social care professionals to optimize care for pregnant women in vulnerable situations were developed and implemented, in Groningen in 2017 and in South Limburg in 2021. This paper describes the extent of implementation of these programs and the perceptions of involved professionals about determinants that influence program implementation. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study in 2021 and 2022 in two Dutch regions, Groningen and South Limburg. Questionnaires were sent to primary care midwives, hospital-based midwives, obstetricians (i.e. maternity care professionals), (coordinating) youth health care nurses and social workers (i.e. social care professionals), involved in the execution of the programs. Semi-structured interviews were held with involved professionals to enrich the quantitative data. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed using Fleuren's implementation model. Results: The findings of the questionnaire (n = 60) and interviews (n = 28) indicate that professionals in both regions are generally positive about the implemented programs. However, there was limited knowledge and use of the program in Groningen. Promoting factors for implementation were mentioned on the determinants for the innovation and the user. Maternity care professionals prefer a general, conversational way to identify vulnerabilities that connects to midwives' daily practice. Low-threshold, personal contact with clear agreements for referral and consultation between professionals contributes to implementation. Professionals agree that properly identifying vulnerabilities and referring women to appropriate care is an important task and contributes to better care. On the determinants of the organization, professionals indicate some preconditions for successful implementation, such as clearly described roles and responsibilities, interprofessional training, time and financial resources. Conclusions: Areas for improvement for the implementation of interprofessional collaboration between maternity care and social care focus mainly on determinants of the organization, which should be addressed both regionally and nationally. In addition, sustainable implementation requires continuous awareness of influencing factors and a process of evaluation, adaptation and support of the target group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We know a great deal about how childbirth is affected by setting; we know less about how the experience of birth is shaped by the attitudes women bring with them to the birthing room. In order to better understand how women frame childbirth, we examined the relationship between birth place preference and expectations and experiences regarding duration of labor and labor pain in healthy nulliparous women.Methods: A prospective cohort study (2007-2011) of 454 women who preferred a home birth (n = 179), a midwife-led hospital birth (n = 133) or an obstetrician-led hospital birth (n = 142) in the Netherlands. Data were collected using three questionnaires (before 20 weeks gestation, 32 weeks gestation and 6 weeks postpartum) and medical records. Analyses were performed according to the initial preferred place of birth.Results: Women who preferred a home birth were significantly less likely to be worried about the duration of labor (OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.2-0.9) and were less likely to expect difficulties with coping with pain (OR 0.4, 95%CI 0.2-0.8) compared with women who preferred an obstetrician-led birth. We found no significant differences in postpartum accounts of duration of labor. When compared to women who preferred an obstetrician-led birth, women who preferred a home birth were significantly less likely to experience labor pain as unpleasant (OR 0.3, 95%CI 0.1-0.7). Women who preferred a midwife-led birth - either home or hospital - were more likely to report that it was not possible to make their own choices regarding pain relief compared to women who preferred obstetrician-led care (OR 4.3, 95%CI 1.9-9.8 resp. 3.4, 95%CI 1.5-7.7). Compared to women who preferred a midwife-led hospital birth, women who preferred a home birth had an increased likelihood of being dissatisfied about the management of pain relief (OR 2.5, 95%CI 1.1-6.0).Discussion: Our findings suggest a more natural orientation toward birth with the acceptance of labor pain as part of giving birth in women with a preference for a home birth. Knowledge about women's expectations and experiences will help caregivers to prepare women for childbirth and will equip them to advise women on birth settings that fit their cognitive frame. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Gaining too much or too little weight in pregnancy (according to Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines) negatively affects both mother and child, but many women find it difficult to manage their gestational weight gain (GWG). Here we describe the use of the intervention mapping protocol to design 'Come On!', an intervention to promote adequate GWG among healthy pregnant women.Design: We used the six steps of intervention mapping: (i) needs assessment; (ii) formulation of change objectives; (iii) selection of theory-based methods and practical strategies; (iv) development of the intervention programme; (v) development of an adoption and implementation plan; and (vi) development of an evaluation plan. A consortium of users and related professionals guided the process of development.Results: As a result of the needs assessment, two goals for the intervention were formulated: (i) helping healthy pregnant women to stay within the IOM guidelines for GWG; and (ii) getting midwives to adequately support the efforts of healthy pregnant women to gain weight within the IOM guidelines. To reach these goals, change objectives and determinants influencing the change objectives were formulated. Theories used were the Transtheoretical Model, Social Cognitive Theory and the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Practical strategies to use the theories were the foundation for the development of 'Come On!', a comprehensive programme that included a tailored Internet programme for pregnant women, training for midwives, an information card for midwives, and a scheduled discussion between the midwife and the pregnant woman during pregnancy. The programme was pre-tested and evaluated in an effect study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]