Giving birth after caesarean: Identifying shared preferences among pregnant women using Q methodology

BackgroundCaesarean rates are rising worldwide, the main contributor being the elective repeat caesarean. During the past decades, rates of vaginal birth after caesarean dropped considerably. This requires insight in women’s preferences regarding giving birth following a previous caesarean.AimTo gain a better understanding of women’s values and preferences regarding the upcoming birth following a previous caesarean. Using Q methodology, this study systematically explores and categorises their preferences.MethodsQ methodology is an innovative research approach to explore and compare a variety of viewpoints on a certain subject. Thirty-one statements on birth after caesarean were developed based on the health belief model. Thirty-six purposively sampled pregnant women with a history of caesarean ranked these statements from least to most important. By-person factor analysis was used to identify patterns which, supplemented with interview data, were interpreted as preferences.FindingsThree distinct preferences for giving birth after a caesarean were found; (a) “Minimise the risks for me and my child”, giving priority to professional advice and risk of adverse events, (b) “Seek the benefits of normal birth”, desiring to give birth as normal as possible for both emotional and practical reasons, (c) “Opt for repeat caesarean”, expressing the belief that a planned caesarean brings comfort.ConclusionsPreferences for birth after caesarean vary considerably among pregnant women. The findings help to understand the different types of information valued by women who need to decide on their mode of birth after a first caesarean.     

Regardless of where they give birth,women living in non-metropolitan areas are less likely to have an epidural than their metropolitan counterparts

QuestionCan differences in Australian birth intervention rates be explained by women's residence at the time of childbearing?.MethodsData were collected prospectively via surveys in 1996, 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009 from women, born between 1973 and 1978, of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Analysis included data from 5886 women who had given birth to their first child between 1994 and 2009. Outcome measures were self-report of birth interventions: pharmacological pain relief (epidural and spinal block analgesia, inhalational analgesia and intramuscular injections), surgical births (an elective or emergency caesarean section) and instrumental births (forceps and ventouse).FindingsPrimiparous women residing in non-metropolitan areas of Australia experienced fewer birth interventions than women residing in metropolitan areas: 43% versus 56% received epidural analgesia; 8% versus 11% had elective caesarean sections; and 16% versus 18% had emergency caesarean sections. Differences in maternal age and private health insurance status at first birth accounted for differences in surgical birth rates but did not fully explain differences in epidural analgesia.ConclusionNon-metropolitan women had fewer birth interventions, particularly epidural analgesia, than metropolitan women. Differences in maternal age and private health insurance do not fully explain the differences in epidural analgesia rates, suggesting care provided to labouring women may differ by area of residence. The difference in epidural analgesia rates may be due to lack of choice in maternity services, however it could also be due to differing expectations leading to differences in birth interventions for primiparous women living in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.     

Qualitative assessment of women's experiences with ECV

For women with unsuccessful ECV, discussions about their mode of delivery should include the benefits and risks of a planned caesarean or vaginal breech birth. However, most obstetric units continue to offer only planned caesarean births when ECVs are unsuccessful despite the proven safety of vaginal breech births in selected patients. Such unit policies can be at variance with a woman's desire and preference for vaginal birth. Thus, a conflict situation arises that could have varying medical, emotional and cultural implications.AimTo provide a consumer perspective on ECV from women who had an unsuccessful procedure.MethodologyA qualitative study involving focus group discussions with women who had unsuccessful ECV at secondary obstetric facility in Melbourne, Australia.ResultsEmergent themes from the focus group discussions were related to emotions associated with the inevitability of a caesarean section for breech, consequences of an unsuccessful ECV and the various activities undertaken by women to induce spontaneous version.ConclusionA medicalized approach to ECV fell short of women's expectations of care. There is a need to develop strategies that will help women deal with any conflicts occasioned by an unsuccessful ECV.     

Perinatal factors related to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms 1–5 years following birth

BackgroundThe relationship between perinatal variables and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms was studied. However, the role of some variables in PTSD symptoms is unclear.AimDetermine the prevalence of PTSD symptoms after 1 year postpartum and their relationship with perinatal variables.MethodsA cross-sectional study with 1531 puerperal women in Spain. Data were collected on socio-demographic variables, perinatal variables (maternal characteristics, procedures during labour and birth, birth outcomes and time since birth) and the newborn. An online questionnaire was used, which included the Perinatal Post-traumatic Stress Questionnaire (PPQ). Crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) were calculated using binary logistic regression.Findings7.2% (110) of the women were identified as being at risk for probable PTSD symptoms. Protective factors were having a birth plan respected (aOR 0.44; 95%CI 0.19−0.99), use of epidural analgesia (aOR 0.44; 95%CI 0.24−0.80) and experiencing skin-to-skin contact (aOR 0.33; 95%CI 0.20−0.55). Risk factors were instrumental birth (aOR 3.32; 95%CI1.73−3.39), caesarean section (aOR 4.80; 95%CI 2.51–9.15), receiving fundal pressure (aOR 1.72; 95%CI 1.08–2.74) and suffering a third/fourth degree perineal tear (aOR 2.73; 95%CI 1.27–5.86). The area under the model’s ROC curve was 0.82 (95%CI 0.79−0.83).ConclusionsWomen who experience a normal birth, are psychologically prepared for birth (for example, through use of a birth plan), experience skin-to-skin contact with their newborn, and had a sense of physical control through the use of epidural analgesia, are less likely to experience childbirth as traumatic.     

Comparing the course of anxiety in women receiving their first or repeated caesarean section: A prospective cohort study

BackgroundAround 30% of births are through caesarean section and repetition rates for receiving a caesarean section are high.AimThe aim of the prospective study was to compare the course of anxiety in women undergoing their first caesarean section and women experiencing a repeated caesarean section.Participants304 women with an indication for an elective caesarean section took part. 155 received their first caesarean section and 149 received a repeated caesarean section.MethodsIn order to measure the course of anxiety on the day of the caesarean section subjective anxiety levels were measured and saliva samples for cortisol determination were taken at admission, during skin closure and two hours after the surgery. Blood pressure and heart rate were documented at skin incision and skin closure.ResultsWomen experiencing their first caesarean section displayed significantly higher anxiety levels compared to women with a repeated caesarean section. Scores of the STAI-State and visual analogue scale for anxiety differed significantly at admission (p = .006 and p < .001) and heart rate and alpha amylase levels were significantly higher at skin closure (p = .027 and p = .029).ConclusionThe results show that previous experience with a caesarean section has a soothing effect. The study aims to sensitize surgeons, anesthetists, nurses and midwives when treating women receiving a caesarean section and encourage them to incorporate soothing interventions, especially for women receiving their first caesarean section to reduce anxiety levels and consequently improve postoperative recovery and patients’ satisfaction.     

The magnitude of the problem of obstetric violence and its associated factors: A cross-sectional study

BackgroundIn recent years, the concept of obstetric violence has become visible among women and professionals, but its prevalence and the factors with which it is related in our healthcare environment are unknown.AimTo determine the prevalence of obstetric violence in the Spanish healthcare system and identify the associated factors.MethodsA cross-sectional observational study was conducted during 2019 and included 899 women who had given birth in the last 12 months. An online questionnaire was distributed through midwives and women associations in Spain. The questionnaire included sociodemographic, clinical, and assistance practices variables. The primary outcome variable was obstetric violence and its verbal, physical, and psycho-affective types. Crude odds ratios (OR) and adjusted OR (ORa) were estimated using binary logistic regression.ResultsObstetric violence was reported by 67.4% (606) of the women; 25.1% (226) verbal, 54.5% (490) physical, and 36.7% (330) psycho-affective. Overall obstetric violence was observed more frequently in women who attended maternal education programme (ORa 1.56, 95% CI 1.05–2.32), those who presented a birth plan but it was not respected (ORa 2.82, 95% CI 1.27–6.29), those who received regional analgesia (ORa 1.61, 95% CI 1.13–2.30), those who required an urgent caesarean section (ORa 3.46, 95% CI 1.79–6.69), underwent an episiotomy (ORa 3.34, 95% CI 2.21–5.38), and whose newborn was admitted to an intensive care unit (ORa 2.73, 95% CI: 1.21–6.15). The presentation of a birth plan was observed as protective factors, and the possibility of skin-to-skin (ORa 0.34, 95% CI 0.18–0.62) and felt respected (ORa 0.61, 95% CI 0.43–0.85).ConclusionsTwo out of three women perceive having suffered obstetric violence during childbirth. Practices such as skin-to-skin contact, and the use of respected birth plans, were protective factors against obstetric violence.     

Mothers’ perceptions and experiences of skin-to-skin contact after vaginal birth in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study

ProblemThe World Health Organization recommends immediate skin-to-skin contact after birth, however, worldwide, separation of mothers and infant is common.BackgroundIn Saudi Arabia, there is a lack of research exploring mothers’ experiences of skin-to-skin contact after birth.AimTo estimate the rate of skin-to-skin contact and describe mothers’ perceptions and experiences of immediate skin-to-skin contact after vaginal birth in two largest hospitals in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.MethodsA cross-sectional study conducted in 2017. A total of 254 mothers completed the survey on the postnatal ward (92 % response rate). The survey consisted of 36 closed and open-ended items. Data were described using summary statistics and free text comments were analysed using content analysis.ResultsThe rate of direct skin-to-skin contact was 15%. A further 54% of mothers had the baby placed on their chest/abdomen but with a sheet/gown between them. Mothers reported favourable perceptions towards skin-to-skin contact and reported the practice as acceptable (67%). Most mothers did not express concerns about feeling exposed (85%) or that skin-to-skin contact was inconsistent with norms of modesty or culture (87%). The free text comments indicated that most mothers felt positive about their experience of skin-to-skin contact, while some mothers felt overwhelmed and unprepared.Discussion and ConclusionsSkin-to-skin contact was not routinely implemented after birth and the rate was low. Mothers held positive perceptions and wanted to practice skin-to-skin contact. Policy makers and clinicians should acknowledge mothers’ needs and feelings by facilitating skin-to-skin contact to achieve optimal outcomes for mothers and infants.     

Who owns the baby? A video ethnography of skin-to-skin contact after a caesarean section

Problem

Providing skin-to-skin contact in the operating theatre and recovery is challenging.

Effect of immediate and continuous mother–infant skin-to-skin contact on breastfeeding self-efficacy of primiparous women: A randomised control trial

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of mother–infant immediate skin-to-skin contact on primiparous mother's breastfeeding self-efficacy.Study designA randomised control trial.SettingsThe study was conducted in Omolbanin obstetrics hospital (large tertiary hospital), Mashhad, Iran.Participants114 18–35 year-old primiparous, Iranian, healthy and full term mothers who anticipated normal vaginal delivery and intended to breastfeed their babies.InterventionSkin-to-skin contact immediately after birth and then controlling breastfeeding self-efficacy at 28 days postpartum.Main outcome measureMaternal breastfeeding self-efficacy at 28 days postpartum and success in first breastfeeding and mean time of first breastfeeding initiation.ResultsA total of 92 mother–infant dyads (47 dyads in skin-to-skin care skin-to-skin contact group and 45 dyads in routine care group) were monitored and analysed. In skin-to-skin contact group, breastfeeding self-efficacy was 53.42 ± 8.57 SD as compared to 49.85 ± 5.50 SD in routine care group which is significantly higher in skin-to-skin contact group (p = 0.0003).Successful breastfeeding initiation rate was 56.6% in skin-to-skin contact group as compared to 35.6% in routine care group (p = 0.02).Time to initiate first feed was 21.98 ± 9.10 SD min in SSC group vs. 66.55 ± 20.76 min in routine care group (p < 0.001).ConclusionMother–infant immediate skin-to-skin contact is an easy and available method of enhancing maternal breastfeeding self-efficacy. High breastfeeding self-efficacy increases exclusive breastfeeding duration.     

Genital tract tears in women giving birth on a birth seat: A cohort study with prospectively collected data

BackgroundBirth positions may influence the risk of tears in the genital tract during birth. Birth positions are widely studied yet knowledge on genital tract tears following birth on a birth seat is inconclusive.AimThe objective of this study was to describe the proportion of genital tract tears in women who gave birth on a birth seat compared to women who did not.MethodAn observational cohort study based on birth information collected prospectively. In total 10 629 live, singleton, non-instrumental births in cephalic presentation were studied.ResultsFewer women who gave birth on a birth seat experienced an overall intact genital tract compared to women who gave birth in any other position. Women who gave birth on a birth seat were less likely to have an episiotomy performed. Women who gave birth vaginally on a birth seat after a previous caesarean section may have an increased risk for sustaining a sphincter tear.DiscussionIt is important to be aware of the decreased chance of an overall intact genital tract area when giving birth on a birth seat. Furthermore, there is a possibly increased risk of sphincter tear in women having a vaginal birth after caesarean. It is required and of importance to provide pregnant women with evidence-based information on factors associated with genital tract tears including birth positions.     

Fear of birth: Prevalence,counselling and method of birth at five obstetrical units in Norway

BackgroundThere is increasing evidence that fear of birth can have long-term effects on the childbearing woman and the method of birth.AimTo examine differences between five hospitals in Norway in the occurrence of fear of birth, counselling received and method of birth.MethodSource data was from the Norwegian cohort of the Bidens study and retrieved through a questionnaire and electronic patient records from five different hospitals in Oslo, Drammen, Tromsø, Ålesund and Trondheim, which included 2145 women. The Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire measured fear of birth, and a cut-off of ≥85 was used to define fear of birth.ResultsIn total, 12% of the women reported fear of birth, with no significant differences between the different units. A total of 8.7% received counselling according to hospital obstetrical records, varying significantly from 5.7% in Drammen to 12.7% in Oslo. Only 24.9% of the women with fear of birth had counselling at their hospital. All the units provided counselling for women with fear, but the content varied. Overarching aims included helping women develop coping strategies like writing a birth plan and clearing up issues regarding prior births. A secondary objective was to prevent unnecessary caesarean section. Both primi- and multiparous women who reported fear of birth had a twofold increased risk of a planned caesarean section.ConclusionThere were no differences between five Norwegian hospitals regarding the occurrence of fear of birth. Counselling methods, resources, level of commitment and the number of women who received counselling varied; thus, hospital practices differed.     

The association between mistreatment of women during childbirth and postnatal maternal and child health care: Findings from “Birth in Brazil”

BackgroundThe mistreatment of women during pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium is a global public health problem besides being a violation of human rights. However, research exploring the consequences of mistreatment of women and newborns is scarce.QuestionTo shed light on this issue, we investigated the association between the mistreatment of women during childbirth and the subsequent use of postnatal health services by women and their newborns.MethodsWe used data from the study “Birth in Brazil”, a national hospital-based survey of puerperal women and their newborns, carried out in 2011/2012. This analysis involved 19,644 women. Mistreatment was a latent variable composed of seven indicators. We assessed the attendance of women and newborns to a review consultation following birth, and the timing of this appointment. We applied multigroup structural equation modeling (based on childbirth payment source) and considered separate analysis for women (vaginal births and0 caesarean-sections) and newborns.FindingsWe found a causal association between mistreatment during childbirth and decreased and/or delayed use of postnatal health services, for both women and their newborns. These results also revealed that women who use the public sector are affected more than those who pay for private healthcare.ConclusionMistreatment during childbirth has broader implications than “maternal mental health”, and it would be useful to understand that experience of care has vast implications for families. In Brazil, the mistreatment must be mitigated via the implementation of public policy. This is part of the path to dignified and respectful childbirth care for all women.     

Quantifying the differences in birth outcomes and out-of-pocket costs between Australian Defence Force servicewomen and civilian women: A data linkage study

ObjectivesServicewomen in Defence Forces the world over are constrained in their health service use by defence healthcare policy. These policies govern a woman’s ability to choose who she receives maternity care from and where. The aim of this study was to compare Australian Defence Force (ADF) servicewomen and children’s birth outcomes, health service use, and out-of-pocket costs to those of civilian women and children.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using linked administrative data for women giving birth between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2018 in Queensland, Australia (n = 365,138 births). Women serving in the ADF at the time of birth were identified as having their care funded by the Department of Defence (n = 395 births). Propensity score matching was used to identify a mixed public/private civilian sample of women to allow for comparison with servicewomen, controlling for baseline characteristics. Sensitivity analysis was also conducted using a sample of civilian women accessing only private maternity care.FindingsNearly all servicewomen gave birth in the private setting (97.22%). They had significantly greater odds of having a caesarean section (OR 1.71, 95%CI 1.29?2.30) and epidural (OR 1.56, 95%CI 1.11?2.20), and significantly lower odds of having a non-instrumental vaginal birth (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.43?0.75) compared to women in the matched public/private civilian sample. Compared to civilian children, children born to servicewomen had significantly higher out-of-pocket costs at birth ($275.93 ± 355.82), in the first ($214.98 ± 403.45) and second ($127.75 ± 391.13) years of life, and overall up to two years of age ($618.66 ± 779.67) despite similar health service use.ConclusionsADF servicewomen have higher rates of obstetric intervention at birth and also pay significantly higher out-of-pocket costs for their children’s health service utilisation up to 2-years of age. Given the high rates of obstetric intervention, greater exploration of servicewomen’s maternity care experiences and preferences is warranted, as this may necessitate further reform to ADF maternity healthcare policy.     

The commonalities and differences in health professionals’ views on home birth in Tasmania,Australia: A qualitative study

ObjectivesHome birth has attracted great controversy in the current context. There is a need for the public and health professionals to understand why maternity care providers have such different views on home birth, why they debate, what divides them into two opposite sides and if they have anything in common.MethodA qualitative study involving twenty maternity health providers in Tasmania was conducted. It used semi-structured interview which included closed and open-ended questions to provide opportunities for exploring emerging insights from the voices of the participants.FindingsHealth practitioners who support home birth do so for three reasons. Firstly, women have the right to choose the place of birth. Secondly, home birth may be more cost effective compared to hospital birth. Thirdly, if home birth is not supported, some women might choose to have a free birth. Those who opposed home birth argue that complications could occur at childbirth and the transfer time is critical for women's and babies’ safety. These differences in opinions can be due to the differences in the training and philosophy of the maternity care providers. Despite the differing views on home births, health professionals share a common goal to protect the women and the newborns from unexpected situations during childbirth.ConclusionThis article provides some significant insights derived from the study of home birth from the maternity health professionals’ perspectives and could contribute to the enhancement of mutual understanding and collaboration of health professionals in their services to expectant mothers.     

Who is holding the baby? Women's experiences of contact with their baby immediately after birth: An Australian population-based survey

BackgroundSeeing and holding their baby immediately after the birth is the pinnacle of the childbearing process for parents. Few studies have examined women's experiences of seeing and holding their baby immediately after birth. We investigated women's experiences of initial contact with their newborns using data from an Australian population-based survey.MethodsAll women who gave birth in September/October in 2007 in two Australian states were mailed questionnaires six months following the birth. Women were asked three questions about early newborn contact including where their baby was held in the first hour after birth and whether they were able to hold their baby as soon and for as long as they liked. We examined the association between model of maternity care and early newborn contact stratified by admission to SCN/NICU.ResultsThe majority (92%) of women whose babies remained with them reported holding their babies as soon and for as long as they liked in the first hour after birth. However, for women whose babies were admitted to SCN/NICU only a minority (47%) reported this. Women in public models of care (with the exception of primary midwifery care) whose babies remained with them were less likely to report holding their babies as soon and for as long as they liked compared to women in private care.ConclusionOur findings suggest that there is potential to increase the proportion of mothers and fathers who get to hold their baby immediately after the birth by modifying birth suite and operating room practices.     

Getting the first birth right: A retrospective study of outcomes for low-risk primiparous women receiving standard care versus midwifery model of care in the same tertiary hospital

BackgroundThere is national and international concern for increasing obstetric intervention in childbirth and rising caesarean section rates. Repeat caesarean section is a major contributing factor, making primiparous women an important target for strategies to reduce unnecessary intervention and surgeries in childbirth.AimThe aim was to compare outcomes for a cohort of low risk primiparous women who accessed a midwifery continuity model of care with those who received standard public care in the same tertiary hospital.MethodsA retrospective comparative cohort study design was implemented drawing on data from two databases held by a tertiary hospital for the period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. Categorical data were analysed using the chi-squared statistic and Fisher's exact test. Continuous data were analysed using Student's t-test. Comparisons are presented using unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values with significance set at 0.05.ResultsData for 426 women experiencing continuity of midwifery care and 1220 experiencing standard public care were compared. The study found increased rates of normal vaginal birth (57.7% vs. 48.9% p = 0.002) and spontaneous vaginal birth (38% vs. 22.4% p = <0.001) and decreased rates of instrumental birth (23.5% vs. 28.5% p = 0.050) and caesarean sections (18.8% vs. 22.5% p = 0.115) in the midwifery continuity cohort. There were also fewer interventions in this group. No differences were found in neonatal outcomes.ConclusionStrategies for reducing caesarean section rates and interventions in childbirth should focus on primiparous women as a priority. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of continuity midwifery models, suggesting that this is an important strategy for improving outcomes in this population.     

Using epidemiological and health economic measures to inform maternity staffing decisions: A guide

BackgroundThere is growing concern around unnecessary intervention (particularly caesarean section) at birth in high-income countries. Caseload midwifery care aims to offset this, but is perceived to be costly to health services.AimTo use epidemiological and health economic techniques to estimate health outcomes and cost-savings of different levels of equivalent full time (EFT) midwives working in caseload midwifery care.MethodsTwo simulations were conducted — one assuming 10 EFT midwives working in a caseload model, with 35 women per caseload, and one assuming 50 EFT midwives working in a caseload model, with 45 women per caseload. Both were based on a sample of 5000 women. The main model inputs included rates of health outcomes for women (caesarean section, epidural anaesthesia, and episiotomy) and infants (low birthweight and admissions to special care nursery (SCN) or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)), and the cost savings associated with health outcome avoidance.FindingsThe first simulation estimated 27 fewer caesarean sections, 12 fewer epidurals, 12 fewer episiotomies, 10 fewer low birthweight births, and 23 fewer infants admitted to SCN or NICU annually, at a total cost saving of AU$1,874,715. The second simulation estimated 173 fewer caesarean sections, 76 fewer epidurals, 76 fewer episiotomies, 65 fewer low birthweight births, and 150 fewer infants admitted to SCN or NICU annually, at a total cost saving of AU$12,051,741.ConclusionThis study provides local-level decision-makers with a decision-tool to calculate the potentially avoidable health outcomes and cost savings associated with implementing caseload midwifery care in their own service.