Search

Australia's caesarean section (CS) rate has been steadily increasing for decades. In response to this, we co‐designed an evidence‐based, multi‐pronged strategy to increase the normal birth rate in Queensland and reduce the need for CS. We conducted three workshops with a multi‐stakeholder group to identify a broad range of options to reduce CS, prioritise these options, and achieve consensus on a final strategy. The strategy comprised of: universal access to midwifery continuity‐of‐care and choice of place of birth; multi‐disciplinary normal birth education; resources to facilitate informed decision‐making; respectful maternity care and positive workplace culture; and establishment of a Normal Birth Collaborative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Fear of childbirth is known to increase a woman's likelihood of having a Caesarean section. Continuity of midwifery care is known to reduce this risk, but less than 8% of women have access to this relationship-based, primary care model. The aims of this study were to determine whether healthcare use and access to continuity models are equal across different indicators of socioeconomic status for women who are fearful of birth. Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted of data obtained during a randomised controlled trial of a psychoeducation intervention by trained midwives to minimise childbirth fear (the Birth Emotions and Looking to Improve Expectant Fear (BELIEF) study). In all, 1410 women were screened, with 339 women reporting high levels of fear (Wijma-Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire ≥66). Demographic, obstetric information, birth preference and psychosocial measures were collected at recruitment and at 36 weeks gestation for the 339 fearful women, with the birth method and health service use returned by 183 women at 6 weeks after the birth. Results: Univariate analysis revealed no significant difference in the number of general practitioner and midwife visits between women of high and low income and high and low education. However, women with higher levels of education had 2.51-fold greater odds of seeing the same midwife throughout their pregnancy than women with lower education (95% confidence interval 1.25–5.04), after adjusting for age, parity and hospital site. Conclusions: Given the known positive outcomes of continuity of midwifery care for women fearful of birth, health policy makers need to provide equity in access to evidence-based models of midwifery care. What is known about this topic?: Caseload midwifery care is considered the gold standard care due to the known positive outcomes it has for the mother and baby during the perinatal period. Pregnant women who receive caseload midwifery care are more likely to experience a normal vaginal birth. What does this paper add?: There is unequal access to midwifery caseload care for women fearful of birth across socioeconomic boundaries. Midwifery caseload care is not used for all fearful mothers during the perinatal period. What are the implications for practitioners?: Health policy makers seeking to provide equity in access to maternity care should be aware of these inequalities in use to target delivery of care at this specific cohort of mothers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High levels of childbirth fear impact birth preparation, obstetric outcomes and emotional wellbeing for around one in five women living in developed countries. Higher rates of obstetric intervention and caesarean section (CS) are experienced in fearful women. The efficacy of interventions to reduce childbirth fear is unclear, with no previous randomised controlled trials reporting birth outcomes or postnatal psychological wellbeing following a midwife led intervention.Method: Between May 2012 and June 2013 women in their second trimester of pregnancy were recruited. Women with a fear score ≥ 66 on the Wijma Delivery Expectancy / Experience Questionnaire (W-DEQ) were randomised to receive telephone psycho-education by a midwife, or usual maternity care. A two armed non-blinded parallel (1:1) multi-site randomised controlled trial with participants allocated in blocks of ten and stratified by hospital site and parity using an electronic centralised computer service. The outcomes of the RCT on obstetric outcomes, maternal psychological well-being, parenting confidence, birth satisfaction, and future birth preference were analysed by intention to treat and reported here.Results: 1410 women were screened for high childbirth fear (W-DEQ ≥66). Three hundred and thirty-nine (n = 339) women were randomised (intervention n = 170; controls n = 169). One hundred and eighty-four women (54 %) returned data for final analysis at 6 weeks postpartum (intervention n = 91; controls n = 93). Compared to controls the intervention group had a clinically meaningful but not statistically significant reduction in overall caesarean section (34 % vs 42 %, p = 0.27) and emergency CS rates (18 % vs 25 %, p = 0.23). Fewer women in the intervention group preferred caesarean section for a future pregnancy (18 % vs 30 %, p = 0.04). All other obstetric variables remained similar. There were no differences in postnatal depression symptoms scores, parenting confidence, or satisfaction with maternity care between groups, but a lower incidence of flashbacks about their birth in the intervention group compared to controls (14 % vs 26 %, p = 0.05). Postnatally women who received psycho-education reported that the 'decision aid' helped reduce their fear (53 % vs 37 %, p = 0.02).Conclusion: Following a brief antenatal midwife-led psycho-education intervention for childbirth fear women were less likely to experience distressing flashbacks of birth and preferred a normal birth in a future pregnancy. A reduction in overall CS rates was also found. Psycho-education for fearful women has clinical benefits for the current birth and expectations of future pregnancies.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Controlled Trials Registry ACTRN12612000526875 , 17th May 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Childbirth confidence is an important marker of women's coping abilities during labour and birth. This study investigated socio-demographic, obstetric and psychological factors affecting self-efficacy in childbearing women. Method: This paper presents a secondary analysis of data collected as part of the BELIEF study (Birth Emotions - Looking to Improve Expectant Fear). Women (n = 1410) were recruited during pregnancy (⩽24 weeks gestation). The survey included socio-demographic details (such as age and partner support); obstetric details including parity, birth preference, and pain; and standardised psychological measures: CBSEI (Childbirth Self-efficacy Inventory), W-DEQ A (childbirth fear) and EPDS (depressive symptoms). Variables were tested against CBSEI first stage of labour sub-scales (outcome expectancy and self-efficacy expectancy) according to parity. Results: CBSEI total mean score was 443 (SD = 112.2). CBSEI, W-DEQ, EPDS scores were highly correlated. Regardless of parity, women who reported low childbirth knowledge, who preferred a caesarean section, and had high W-DEQ and EPDS scores reported lower self-efficacy. There were no differences for nulliparous or multiparous women on outcome expectancy, but multiparous women had higher self-efficacy scores (p < .001). Multiparous women whose partner was unsupportive were more likely to report low self-efficacy expectancy (p < .05). Experiencing moderate pain in pregnancy was significantly associated with low self-efficacy expectancy in both parity groups, as well as low outcome expectancy in nulliparous women only. Fear correlated strongly with low childbirth self-efficacy. Conclusion: Few studies have investigated childbirth self-efficacy according to parity. Although multiparous women reported higher birth confidence significant obstetric and psychological differences were found. Addressing women's physical and emotional wellbeing and perceptions of the upcoming birth may highlight their level of self-efficacy for birth. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Controlled Trials Registry ACTRN12612000526875, 17th May 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Childbirth fear is associated with increased obstetric interventions and poor emotional and psychological health for women. The purpose of this study is to test an antenatal psycho-education intervention by midwives in reducing women's childbirth fear. Methods Women ( n = 1,410) attending three hospitals in South East Queensland, Australia, were recruited into the BELIEF trial. Participants reporting high fear were randomly allocated to intervention ( n = 170) or control ( n = 169) groups. All women received a decision-aid booklet on childbirth choices. The telephone counseling intervention was offered at 24 and 34 weeks of pregnancy. The control group received usual care offered by public maternity services. Primary outcome was reduction in childbirth fear ( WDEQ-A) from second trimester to 36 weeks' gestation. Secondary outcomes were improved childbirth self-efficacy, and reduced decisional conflict and depressive symptoms. Demographic, obstetric & psychometric measures were administered at recruitment, and 36 weeks of pregnancy. Results There were significant differences between groups on postintervention scores for fear of birth ( p < 0.001) and childbirth self-efficacy ( p = 0.002). Decisional conflict and depressive symptoms reduced but were not significant. Conclusion Psycho-education by trained midwives was effective in reducing high childbirth fear levels and increasing childbirth confidence in pregnant women. Improving antenatal emotional well-being may have wider positive social and maternity care implications for optimal childbirth experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Childbirth fear is reported to affect around 20% of women. However reporting on levels of symptom severity vary. Unlike Scandinavian countries, there has been limited focus on childbirth fear in Australia. The aim of this paper is to determine the prevalence of low, moderate, high and severe levels of childbirth fear in a large representative sample of pregnant women drawn from a large randomised controlled trial and identify demographic and obstetric characteristics associated with childbirth fear. Method: Using a descriptive cross-sectional design, 1,410 women in their second trimester were recruited from one of three public hospitals in south-east Queensland. Participants were screened for childbirth fear using the Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire Version A (WDEQ-A). Associations of demographic and obstetric factors and levels of childbirth fear between nulliparous and multiparous women were investigated. Results: Prevalence of childbirth fear was 24% overall, with 31.5% of nulliparous women reporting high levels of fear (score ≥66 on the WDEQ-A) compared to 18% of multiparous women. Childbirth fear was associated with paid employment, parity, and mode of last birth, with higher levels of fear in first time mothers (p < 0.001) and in women who had previously had an operative birth (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Prevalence of childbirth fear in Australian women was comparable to international rates. Significant factors associated with childbirth fear were being in paid employment, and obstetric characteristics such as parity and birth mode in the previous pregnancy. First time mothers had higher levels of fear than women who had birthed before. A previous operative birth was fear provoking. Experiencing a previous normal birth was protective of childbirth fear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. For women with a lower uterine incision without indication for repeat Caesarean section (CS), vaginal birth for their next pregnancy is a safe option. Although these women should be encouraged to consider vaginal birth after a Caesarean section (VBAC) it is not consistently supported in practice. There is relatively little information on the extent to which maternal preference, birthing decisions and outcomes match best available evidence. Aim. To describe current VBAC rates for women in Queensland, Australia and compare this to safe, achievable VBAC rates reported in national and international studies. Method. Perinatal data from 2004 to 2011 were reviewed to determine current VBAC rates following a primary CS for women birthing in Queensland. These were compared with VBAC rates reported in the literature. Results. Queensland has a high overall CS rate and high repeat CS rate compared with the national average. In 2010, Queensland VBAC rates for next birth following primary CS were 14% (range 13-21% public sector, 7-11% private hospitals). This is substantially lower than achievable Australian rates of 24% and international rates. Conclusion. Low VBAC rates reflect low numbers of women commencing labour in a pregnancy subsequent to a primary CS. There is unexplained variation in VBAC rates between maternity facilities. Clinical reviews to support evidence-based practice are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID‐19 caused significant disruptions to health systems globally; however, restricting the family presence during birth saw an increase in women considering community birth options. This study aimed to quantify the hospital resource savings that could occur if all low‐risk women in Australia gave birth at home or in birth centers. Methods: A whole‐of‐population linked administrative data set containing all women (n = 44 498) who gave birth in Queensland, Australia, between 01/07/2012 and 30/06/2015 was reweighted to represent all Australian women giving birth in 2017. A static microsimulation model of woman and infant health service resource use was created based on 2017 data. The model was comprised of a base model, representing "current" care, and a counterfactual model, representing hypothetical scenarios where all low‐risk Australian women gave birth at home or in birth centers. Results: If all low‐risk women gave birth at home in 2017, cesarean rates would have reduced from 13.4% to 2.7%. Similarly, there would have been 860 fewer inpatient bed days and 10.1 fewer hours of women's intensive care unit time per 1000 births. If all women gave birth in birth centers, cesarean rates would have reduced to 6.7%. In addition, over 760 inpatient bed days would have been saved along with 5.6 hours of women's intensive care unit time per 1000 births. Conclusions: Significant health resource savings could occur by shifting low‐risk births from hospitals to home birth and birth center services. Greater examination of Australian women's preferences for home birth and birth center birth models of care is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To determine maternal access to continuity of midwifery care in public maternity hospitals across the state of Queensland, Australia. Methods. Maternal access to continuity of midwifery care in Queensland was modelled by considering the proportion of midwives publicly employed to provide continuity of midwifery care alongside 2017 birth data for Queensland Hospital and Health Services. The model assumed an average caseload per full-time equivalent midwife working in continuity of care with 35 women per annum, based on state Nursing and Midwifery Award conditions. Hospitals were grouped into five clusters using standard Australian hospital classifications. Results. Twenty-seven facilities (out of 39, 69%) across all 15 hospital and health services in Queensland providing a maternity service offered continuity of midwifery care in 2017 (birthing onsite). Modelling applying the assumed caseload of 35 women per full-time equivalent midwife found wide variations in the percentage of women able to access continuity of midwifery care, with access available for an estimated 18% of childbearing women across the state. Hospital classifications with higher clinical services capability and birth volume did not equate with higher access to continuity of midwifery care in metropolitan areas. Regional health serviceswith level 3 district hospitals assisting with, 500 births showed higher levels of access, potentially due to additional challenges to meet local population needs to those of a metropolitan service. Access to full continuity of midwifery care in level 3 remote hospitals (,500 births) was artificially inflated due to planned pre-labour transfers for women requiring specialised intrapartum care and women who planned to birth at other hospitals. Conclusions. Despite strong evidence that continuity of midwifery care offers optimal care for women and their babies, there was significant variation in implementation and scale-up of these models across hospital jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical interventions known to reduce the risk of caesarean delivery include routine induction of labour at 39 weeks, caseload midwifery and chart audit, but they have not been compared for cost-effectiveness.Objective: To assesses the cost-effectiveness of three different interventions known to reduce caesarean delivery rates compared to standard care; and conduct a budget impact analysis.Methods: A Markov microsimulation model was constructed to compare the costs and outcomes produced by the different interventions. Costs included all costs to the health system, and outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. A budget impact analysis was undertaken using this model to quantify the costs (in Australian dollars) over three years for government health system funders.Results: All interventions, plus standard care, produced similar health outcomes (mean of 1.84 QALYs gained over 105 weeks). Caseload midwifery was the lowest cost option at $15 587 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15 269, 15 905), followed by routine induction of labour ($16 257, 95% CI 15 989, 16 536), and chart audit ($16 325, 95% CI 15 979, 16 671). All produced lower costs on average than standard care ($16 905, 95% CI 16 551, 17 259). Caseload midwifery would produce the greatest savings of $172.6 million over three years if implemented for all low-risk nulliparous women in Australia.Conclusions: Caseload midwifery presents the best value for reducing caesarean delivery rates of the options considered. Routine induction of labour at 39 weeks and chart audit would also reduce costs compared to standard care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study sought to compare costs for women giving birth in different public hospital services across Queensland and their babies. Methods: A whole-of-population linked administrative dataset was used containing all health service use in a public hospital in Queensland for women who gave birth between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2015 and their babies. Generalised linear models were used to compare costs over the first 1000 days between hospital and health services. Results: The mean unadjusted cost for each woman and her baby (n = 134 910) was A$17406 in the first 1000 days. After adjusting for clinical and demographic factors and birth type, women and their babies who birthed in the Cairns Hospital and Health Service (HHS) had costs 19% lower than those who birthed in Gold Coast HHS (95% confidence interval (CI) –32%, –4%); women and their babies who birthed at the Mater public hospitals had costs 28% higher than those who birthed at Gold Coast HHS (95% CI 8, 51). Conclusions: There was considerable variation in costs between hospital and health services in Queensland for the costs of delivering maternity care. Cost needs to be considered as an important additional element of monitoring programs. What is known about the topic?: The Australian maternal care system delivers high-quality, safe care to Australian mothers. However, this comes at a considerable financial cost to the Australian public health system. It is known that there are variations in the cost of care depending upon the model of care a woman receives, and the type of delivery she has, with higher-cost treatment not necessarily being safer or producing better outcomes. What does this paper add?: This paper compares the cost of delivering a full cycle of maternity care to a woman at different HHSs across Queensland. It demonstrates that there is considerable variation in cost across HHSs, even after adjusting for clinical and demographic factors. What are the implications for practitioners?: Reporting of cost should be an ongoing part of performance monitoring in public hospital maternity care alongside clinical outcomes to ensure the sustainability of the high-quality maternal health care Australian public hospitals deliver. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Childbirth fear has received considerable attention in Scandinavian countries, and the United Kingdom, but not in Australia. For first-time mothers, fear is often linked to a perceived lack of control and disbelief in the body's ability to give birth safely, whereas multiparous women may be fearful as a result of previous negative and/or traumatic birth experiences. There have been few well-designed intervention studies that test interventions to address women's childbirth fear, support normal birth, and diminish the possibility of a negative birth experience. Methods/design Pregnant women in their second trimester of pregnancy will be recruited and screened from antenatal clinics in Queensland, Australia. Women reporting high childbirth fear will be randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. The psycho-educational intervention is offered by midwives over the telephone at 24 and 34 weeks of pregnancy. The intervention aims to review birth expectations, work through distressing elements of childbirth, discuss strategies to develop support networks, affirm that negative childbirth events can be managed and develop a birth plan. Women in the control group will receive standard care offered by the public funded maternity services in Australia. All women will receive an information booklet on childbirth choices. Data will be collected at recruitment during the second trimester, 36 weeks of pregnancy, and 4-6 weeks after birth. Discussion This study aims to test the efficacy of a brief, midwife-led psycho-education counselling (known as BELIEF: Birth Emotions - Looking to Improve Expectant Fear) to reduce women's childbirth fear. Relative to controls, women receiving BELIEF will report lower levels of childbirth fear at term; 2) less decisional conflict; 3) less depressive symptoms; 4) better childbirth self-efficacy; and 5) improved health and obstetric outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Childbirth fear has received considerable attention in Scandinavian countries, and the United Kingdom, but not in Australia. For first-time mothers, fear is often linked to a perceived lack of control and disbelief in the body's ability to give birth safely, whereas multiparous women may be fearful as a result of previous negative and/or traumatic birth experiences. There have been few well-designed intervention studies that test interventions to address women's childbirth fear, support normal birth, and diminish the possibility of a negative birth experience.Methods/design: Pregnant women in their second trimester of pregnancy will be recruited and screened from antenatal clinics in Queensland, Australia. Women reporting high childbirth fear will be randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. The psycho-educational intervention is offered by midwives over the telephone at 24 and 34 weeks of pregnancy. The intervention aims to review birth expectations, work through distressing elements of childbirth, discuss strategies to develop support networks, affirm that negative childbirth events can be managed and develop a birth plan. Women in the control group will receive standard care offered by the public funded maternity services in Australia. All women will receive an information booklet on childbirth choices. Data will be collected at recruitment during the second trimester, 36 weeks of pregnancy, and 4-6 weeks after birth.Discussion: This study aims to test the efficacy of a brief, midwife-led psycho-education counselling (known as BELIEF: Birth Emotions - Looking to Improve Expectant Fear) to reduce women's childbirth fear. 1) Relative to controls, women receiving BELIEF will report lower levels of childbirth fear at term; 2) less decisional conflict; 3) less depressive symptoms; 4) better childbirth self-efficacy; and 5) improved health and obstetric outcomes.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Controlled Trials Registry ACTRN12612000526875. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]