Search

Qualitative research about women and birthing people's experiences of fetal monitoring during labour and birth is scant. Labour and birth is often impacted by wearable or invasive monitoring devices, however, most published research about fetal monitoring is focused on the wellbeing of the fetus. This manuscript is derived from a larger mixed methods study, 'WOmen's Experiences of Monitoring Baby (The WOMB Study)', aiming to increase understanding of the experiences of women and birthing people in Australia, of being monitored; and about the information they received about fetal monitoring devices during pregnancy. We constructed a national cross-sectional survey that was distributed via social media in May and June, 2022. Responses were received from 861 participants. As far as we are aware, this is the first survey of the experiences of women and birthing people of intrapartum fetal monitoring conducted in Australia. This paper comprises the analysis of the free text survey responses, using qualitative and inductive content analysis. Two categories were constructed, Tending to the machine, which explores participants' perceptions of the way in which clinicians interacted with fetal monitoring technologies; and Impressions of the machine, which explores the direct impact of fetal monitoring devices upon the labour and birth experience of women and birthing people. The findings suggest that some clinicians need to reflect upon the information they provide to women and birthing people about monitoring. For example, freedom of movement is an important aspect of supporting the physiology of labour and managing pain. If freedom of movement is important, the physical restriction created by a wired cardiotocograph is inappropriate. Many participants noticed that clinicians focused their attention primarily on the technology. Prioritising the individual needs of the woman or birthing person is key to providing high quality woman-centred intrapartum care. Women should be provided with adequate information regarding the risks and benefits of different forms of fetal monitoring including how the form of monitoring might impact her labour experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to directly compare women's pregnancy to postpartum outcomes and experiences across the major maternity models of care offered in Queensland, Australia. We conducted secondary analyses of self-reported data collected in 2012 from a state-wide sample of women who had recently given birth in Queensland (response rate = 30.4%). Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of outcomes and experiences associated with three models (GP Shared Care, Public Midwifery Continuity Care, Private Obstetric Care) compared with Standard Public Care, adjusting for relevant maternal characteristics and clinical covariates. Of 2,802 women, 18.2% received Standard Public Care, 21.7% received GP Shared Care, 12.9% received Public Midwifery Continuity Care, and 47.1% received Private Obstetric Care. There were minimal differences for women in GP Shared Care. Women in Public Midwifery Continuity Care were less likely to have a scheduled caesarean and more likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth, experience freedom of mobility during labour and informed consent processes for inducing labour, vaginal examinations, fetal monitoring and receiving Syntocinon to birth their placenta, and report highest quality interpersonal care. They had fewer vaginal examinations, lower odds of perineal trauma requiring sutures and anxiety after birth, shorter postpartum hospital stays, and higher odds of a home postpartum care visit. Women in Private Obstetric Care were more likely to have their labour induced, a scheduled caesarean birth, experience informed consent processes for caesarean, and report highest quality interpersonal care, but less likely to experience unassisted vaginal birth and informed consent for Syntocinon to birth their placenta. There is an urgent need to communicate variations between maternity models across the range of outcome and experiential measures that are important to women; build more rigorous comparative evidence for Private Midwifery Care; and prioritise experiential and out-of-pocket cost comparisons in further research to enable woman-centred informed decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]