The United Kingdom and the Netherlands maternity care responses to COVID-19: A comparative study

BackgroundThe national health care response to coronavirus (COVID-19) has varied between countries. The United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) have comparable maternity and neonatal care systems, and experienced similar numbers of COVID-19 infections, but had different organisational responses to the pandemic. Understanding why and how similarities and differences occurred in these two contexts could inform optimal care in normal circumstances, and during future crises.AimTo compare the UK and Dutch COVID-19 maternity and neonatal care responses in three key domains: choice of birthplace, companionship, and families in vulnerable situations.MethodA multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders.FindingsBoth countries had an infection control focus, with less emphasis on the impact of restrictions, especially for families in vulnerable situations. Differences included care providers’ fear of contracting COVID-19; the extent to which community- and personalised care was embedded in the care system before the pandemic; and how far multidisciplinary collaboration and service-user involvement were prioritised.ConclusionWe recommend that countries should 1) make a systematic plan for crisis decision-making before a serious event occurs, and that this must include authentic service-user involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, and protection of staff wellbeing 2) integrate women’s and families’ values into the maternity and neonatal care system, ensuring equitable inclusion of the most vulnerable and 3) strengthen community provision to ensure system wide resilience to future shocks from pandemics, or other unexpected large-scale events.     

Maternal,prenatal and traditional practice factors associated with perinatal mortality in Yemen

Background

Perinatal mortality remains a major international problem responsible for nearly six million stillbirths and neonatal deaths.

农村出生性别比升高的分析——社区生育文化的视角

本文通过在海南省海口市近郊农村的实地调查指出,农村宗族现象的存在、社会保险制度的不健全、家庭老年人的压力和社区控制的失灵既使传统社区生育文化得以存在和延续,又强化了村民们的传统生育意愿与行为,而传统社区生育文化与村民生育意愿、行为相互建构、相互支持,从而导致社区出生性别比失调.应发挥农村社区熟人社会的优势,将社区作为控制出生性别比升高的一个重要平台,大力提高女性地位,营造两性平等的社区氛围,通过各种措施重塑新的社区生育文化,从根本上解决出生性别比问题.     

The impact of COVID-19 on the provision of respectful maternity care: Findings from a global survey of health workers

BackgroundSignificant adjustments to maternity care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the direct impacts of COVID-19 can compromise the quality of maternal and newborn care.AimTo explore how the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected frontline health workers’ ability to provide respectful maternity care globally.MethodsWe conducted a global online survey of health workers to assess the provision of maternal and newborn healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected qualitative data between July and December 2020 among a subset of respondents and conducted a qualitative content analysis to explore open-ended responses.FindingsHealth workers (n = 1127) from 71 countries participated; and 120 participants from 33 countries provided qualitative data. The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected the provision of respectful maternity care in multiple ways. Six central themes were identified: less family involvement, reduced emotional and physical support for women, compromised standards of care, increased exposure to medically unjustified caesarean section, and staff overwhelmed by rapidly changing guidelines and enhanced infection prevention measures. Further, respectful care provided to women and newborns with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection was severely affected due to health workers’ fear of getting infected and measures taken to minimise COVID-19 transmission.DiscussionMultidimensional and contextually-adapted actions are urgently needed to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision and continued promotion of respectful maternity care globally in the long-term.ConclusionsThe measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic had the capacity to disrupt the provision of respectful maternity care and therefore the quality of maternity care.     

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.     

Neonatal resuscitation training for midwives in Australia: A discussion of current practice

BackgroundMore than 300,000 babies are born in Australia each year, with almost 20% of newborns requiring some form of neonatal resuscitation at birth. The most common first responders to a neonatal resuscitation emergency are midwives. While the Australian and New Zealand Council on Resuscitation guides midwives’ practice during a neonatal resuscitation, each state and territory uses varying strategies to train and assess midwives proficiency in neonatal resuscitation.AimTo examine the neonatal resuscitation training requirements for midwives and raise awareness for the lack of consistency in training in Australia.DiscussionA significant variation was found in the teaching methods and frequency of training for neonatal resuscitation across Australia. Neonatal resuscitation is mandated through a state-wide guideline or policy in only four of the states with seven formal neonatal resuscitation training programs used across seven states and territories. Although a multi-modal approach to learning is present in all of the programs, the combination of teaching methods differ.Conclusion and RecommendationsA standardised, evidence-based training program is required to ensure consistency in training for midwives in Australia. Multi-modal learning is common across all current training programs; however, the best combination of multi-modal teaching methods needs to be determined. Neonatal resuscitation training needs to occur at least annually, as recommended by the Australian and New Zealand Council on Resuscitation.     

Exploring outcomes for women and neonates having skin-to-skin contact during caesarean birth: A quasi-experimental design and qualitative study

ProblemWomen having an elective caesarean birth are often separated from their babies at birth with newborns transferred to a postnatal ward with the significant other.BackgroundTwo midwives were employed in 2019 to provide skin-to-skin contact for women who planned for elective caesarean births in a public hospital in metropolitan New South Wales with 4000 births per year and a 39% CB rate (57.8% of these births being elective).AimTo compare the outcomes for women and their newborns on the effects of skin-to-skin contact at elective caesarean births within the first five minutes of birth to those who did not have skin-to-skin contact and to explore the lived experiences of women having skin-to-skin contact during their elective caesarean births.MethodsA quasi-experimental design study with a qualitative component of in-depth interviews. Quantitative analyses included independent t-tests, chi square and logistic regression. Thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data.FindingsIn the quantitative results, there was a reduction in the time to the first feed (t(100) = ?11.32, p < 0.001) (M = 38.9, SE = 20.7) (M = 124.9, SE = 50.1) and the first breastfeed (t(100) = ?5.2, p < 0.001) (M = 53.2, SE = 82.5) (M = 277, SE = 295.8) with increased breastfeeding on discharge for women that had skin-to-skin contact at caesarean birth in comparison to those who did not receive skin-to-skin contact χ2(1) = 10.22, p < 0.05. In the qualitative results, women who had skin-to-skin contact during their caesarean birth had a positive experience with improved bonding and reported less anxiety and depression than their previous caesarean birth.ConclusionThis study provides evidence of the benefits of skin-to-skin contact during a caesarean birth.     

Making the hidden seen: A narrative analysis of the experiences of Assumption of Care at birth

Background

Being involved in any child protection system is complex and multifaceted and none more so than in non-voluntary Assumption of Care which occurs in New South Wales when, for child protection concerns, the Department of Family and Community Services removes a newborn baby from her/his mother.

Evaluation of a regional midwifery caseload model of care integrated across five birthing sites in South Australia: Women’s experiences and birth outcomes

IntroductionThe ongoing closure of regional maternity services in Australia has significant consequences for women and communities. In South Australia, a regional midwifery model of care servicing five birthing sites was piloted with the aim of bringing sustainable birthing services to the area. An independent evaluation was undertaken. This paper reports on women’s experiences and birth outcomes.AimTo evaluate the effectiveness, acceptability, continuity of care and birth outcomes of women utilising the new midwifery model of care.MethodAn anonymous questionnaire incorporating validated surveys and key questions from the Quality Maternal and Newborn Care (QMNC) Framework was used to assess care across the antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal period. Selected key labour and birth outcome indicators as reported by the sites to government perinatal data collections were included.FindingsThe response rate was 52.6% (205/390). Women were overwhelmingly positive about the care they received during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period. About half of women had caseload midwives as their main antenatal care provider; the other half experienced shared care with local general practitioners and caseload midwives. Most women (81.4%) had a known midwife at their birth. Women averaged 4 post-natal home visits with their midwife and 77.5% were breastfeeding at 6–8 weeks. Ninety-five percent of women would seek this model again and recommend it to a friend. Maternity indicators demonstrated a lower induction rate compared to state averages, a high primiparous normal birth rate (73.8%) and good clinical outcomes.ConclusionThis innovative model of care was embraced by women in regional SA and labour and birth outcomes were good as compared with state-wide indicators.