Search

Objective: to examine the effect of gestational weight gain (GWG) on likelihood of referral from midwife-led to obstetrician-led care during pregnancy and childbirth for women in primary care at the outset of their pregnancy. Design: secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. Setting: Dutch midwife-led practices. Participants: a cohort of 1288 women of Northern European descent, with uncomplicated, singleton pregnancy at antenatal booking who consequently were eligible for primary, midwife-led care. Measurements: because of the absence of an established GWG guideline in the Netherlands, we compared the effect of inadequate and excessive GWG according to two GWG guidelines: the criterion traditionally used, which is based on knowledge of the physiological components of GWG, advising 10-15 kg as a normal GWG irrespective of a woman's BMI category, and the 2009 Institute of Medicine recommendations (IOMr) on GWG, which provide BMI related advice. Outcome measures were: number of women referred from midwife-led to obstetrician-led care during pregnancy and during childbirth; indications of referral and birth outcomes. Findings: GWG above traditional criteria (Tc; > 15 kg between 12 and 36 weeks) was associated with increased odds for referral during childbirth (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22-2.90), but had no effect on referral during pregnancy (aOR .86; 95% CI .57-1.30). No associations were established between GWG below Tc (< 10 kg) and referral during pregnancy (aOR 1.08; 95% CI .78-1.50) or childbirth (aOR 1.08; 95% CI .74-1.56). No associations were found between GWG below and above the IOMr and referral during pregnancy (below IOMr: aOR 1.01; 95% CI .71-1.45; above IOMr: aOR .89; 95% CI .61-1.28) or childbirth (below IOMr: aOR .85; 95% CI .57-1.25; above IOMr: aOR 1.09; 95% CI .73-1.63). With regard to the effect of GWG according to both recommendations on indications for referral and birth outcomes, GWG above Tc was associated with higher rates of referral for hypertensive disorders (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 1.04-3.50) and for meconium stained liquor (aOR 2.22; CI 1.33-3.71) after adjusting for BMI and parity. Conclusions: GWG above Tc - irrespective of BMI category - was associated with doubled odds of referral to specialist care during childbirth. GWG below or above IOMR and GWG below TC were not associated with adverse obstetric outcomes in women who were eligible for primary care at the outset of their pregnancy. Implications for practice: weight gain < 15 kg between 12 and 36 weeks is advised for women in all BMI categories in this population. It is important to validate GWG guidelines in a target population before implementing them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: little is known of the impact of gestational weight gain (GWG) in relation to Body Mass Index (BMI) classification on perinatal outcomes in healthy pregnant women without co-morbidities. As a first step, the prevalence of obesity and the distribution of GWG in relation to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2009 guidelines for GWG were examined. Methods: data from a prospective cohort study of - a priori - low risk, pregnant women from five midwife-led practices (n=1449) were analysed. Weight was measured at 12, 24 and 36 weeks. Findings: at 12 weeks, 1.4% of the women were underweight, 53.8% had a normal weight, 29.6% were overweight, and 15.1% were obese according to the WHO classification of BMI. In our study population, 60% of the women did not meet the IOM recommendations: 33.4% had insufficient GWG and 26.7% gained too much weight. Although BMI was negatively correlated to total GWG (p <.001), overweight and obese women class I had a significant higher risk of exceeding the IOM guidelines. Normal weight women had a significantly higher risk of gaining less weight than recommended. Obese women classes II and III were at risk in both over- and undergaining. Conclusions: our data showed that the majority of women were unable to stay within recommended GWG ranges without additional interventions. The effects on pregnancy and health outcomes of falling out the IOM guidelines remain unclear for - a priori - low risk women. Since interventions to control GWG would have considerable impact on women and caregivers, harms and benefits should be well-considered before implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Objective: to study the effect of body mass index (BMI) on the use of antenatal care by women in midwife-led care., Design: an explorative cohort study., Setting: 11 Dutch midwife-led practices., Participants: a cohort of 4421 women, registered in the Midwifery Case Registration System (VeCaS), who received antenatal care in midwife-led practices in the Netherlands and gave birth between October 2012 and October 2014., Findings: the mean start of initiation of care was at 9.3 (SD 4.6) weeks of pregnancy. Multiple linear regression showed that with an increasing BMI initiation of care was significantly earlier but BMI only predicted 0.2% (R 2 ) of the variance in initiation of care. The mean number of face-to- face antenatal visits in midwife-led care was 11.8 (SD 3.8) and linear regression showed that with increasing BMI the number of antenatal visits increased. BMI predicted 0.1% of the variance in number of antenatal visits. The mean number of antenatal contacts by phone was 2.2 (SD 2.6). Multiple linear regression showed an increased number of contacts by phone for BMI categories 'underweight' and 'obese class I'. BMI categories predicted 1% of the variance in number of contacts by phone., Key Conclusions: BMI was not a relevant predictor of variance in initiation of care and number of antenatal visits. Obese pregnant women in midwife-led practices do not delay or avoid antenatal care., Implications for Practice: Taking care of pregnant women with a high BMI does not significantly add to the workload of primary care midwives. Further research is needed to more fully understand the primary maternal health services given to obese women., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)