Search

Introduction Integrated care is seen as an enabling strategy in organising healthcare to improve quality, finances, personnel and sustainability. Developments in the organisation of maternity care follow this trend. The way care is organised should support the general aims and outcomes of healthcare systems. Organisation itself consists of a variety of smaller ‘elements of organisation’. Various elements of organisation are implemented in different organisations and networks. We will examine which elements of integrated maternity care are associated with maternal and neonatal health outcomes, experiences of women and professionals, healthcare spending and care processes. Methods and analysis We will conduct this review using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and the reporting guideline PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews). We will undertake a systematic search in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and PsycINFO. A machine learning tool, ASReview, will be used to select relevant papers. These papers will be analysed and classified thematically using the framework of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC). The Population Concept Context framework for scoping reviews will be used in which ‘Population’ is defined as elements of the organisation of integrated maternity care, ‘Context’ as high-income countries and ‘Concepts’ as outcomes stated in the objective of this review. We will include papers from 2012 onwards, in Dutch or English language, which describe both ‘how the care is organised’ (elements) and ‘outcomes’. Ethics and dissemination Since this is a scoping review of previously published summary data, ethical approval for this study is not needed. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed international journal, discussed in a webinar and presented at (inter)national conferences and meetings of professional associations. The findings of this scoping review will give insigh

Objective: To explore the behavioural drivers of fear of litigation among healthcare providers influencing caesarean section (CS) rates. Design: Scoping review. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus and WHO Global Index (1 January 2001 to 9 March 2022). Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted using a form specifically designed for this review and we conducted content analysis using textual coding for relevant themes. We used the WHO principles for the adoption of a behavioural science perspective in public health developed by the WHO Technical Advisory Group for Behavioural Sciences and Insights to organise and analyse the findings. We used a narrative approach to summarise the findings. Results: We screened 2968 citations and 56 were included. Reviewed articles did not use a standard measure of influence of fear of litigation on provider’s behaviour. None of the studies used a clear theoretical framework to discuss the behavioural drivers of fear of litigation. We identified 12 drivers under the three domains of the WHO principles: (1) cognitive drivers: availability bias, ambiguity aversion, relative risk bias, commission bias and loss aversion bias; (2) social and cultural drivers: patient pressure, social norms and blame culture and (3) environmental drivers: legal, insurance, medical and professional, and media. Cognitive biases were the most discussed drivers of fear of litigation, followed by legal environment and patient pressure. Conclusions: Despite the lack of consensus on a definition or measurement, we found that fear of litigation as a driver for rising CS rates results from a complex interaction between cognitive, social and environmental drivers. Many of our findings were transferable across geographical and practice settings. Behavioural interventions that consider these drivers are crucial to address the fear of litigation as part of strategies to reduce CS.

Introduction: An appropriately staffed midwifery workforce is essential for the provision of safe and high-quality maternity care. However, there is a global and national shortage of midwives. Understaffed maternity services are frequently identified as contributing to unsafe care provision and adverse outcomes for mothers and babies. While there is a need to recruit midwives through pre-registration midwifery programmes, this has significant resource implications, and is counteracted to a large extent by the high number of midwives leaving the workforce. It is increasingly recognised that there is a critical need to attend to retention in midwifery in order to develop and maintain safe staffing levels. The objective of this review is to collate and map factors that have been found to influence attrition and retention in midwifery. Methods and analysis: Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews will be used to guide the review process and reporting of the review. CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus databases will be searched for relevant literature from date of inception to 21 July 2023. Research from high-income countries that explores factors that influence leaving intentions for midwives will be included. Literature from low-income and middle-income countries, and studies where nursing and midwifery data cannot be disaggregated will be excluded. Two reviewers will screen 20% of retrieved citations in duplicate, the first author will screen the remaining results. Data will be extracted using a preformed data extraction tool by the first author. Findings will be presented in narrative, tabular and graphical formats. Ethics and dissemination: The review will collate data from existing research, therefore ethics approval is not required. Findings will be published in journals, presented at conferences and will be translated into infographics and other

Background Postnatal care (PNC) is a key component of maternity provision and presents opportunities for healthcare providers to optimise the health and well-being of women and newborns. However, PNC is often undervalued by parents, family members and healthcare providers. As part of a larger qualitative review exploring the factors that influence PNC uptake by relevant stakeholders, we examined a subset of studies highlighting the views of fathers, partners and family members of postpartum women. Methods We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis using a framework synthesis approach. We searched multiple databases and included studies with extractable qualitative data focusing on PNC utilisation. We identified and labelled a subset of articles reflecting the views of fathers, partners and other family members. Data abstraction and quality assessment were carried out using a bespoke data extraction form and established quality assessment tools. The framework was developed a priori based on previous research on the topic and adapted accordingly. Findings were assessed for confidence using the GRADE-CERQual approach and are presented by country income group. Results Of 12 678 papers identified from the original search, 109 were tagged as ‘family members views’ and, of these, 30 were eligible for this review. Twenty-nine incorporated fathers’ views, 7 included the views of grandmothers or mothers-in-law, 4 incorporated other family member views and 1 included comothers. Four themes emerged: access and availability; adapting to fatherhood; sociocultural influences and experiences of care. These findings highlight the significant role played by fathers and family members on the uptake of PNC by women as well as the distinct concerns and needs of fathers during the early postnatal period. Conclusion To optimise access to postnatal care, health providers should adopt a more inclusive approach incorporating flexible contact opportunities, the availability of more ‘family

Introduction: Stillbirth is associated with significant physical, psychosocial and economic consequences for parents, families, wider society and the healthcare system. There is emerging momentum to design and evaluate interventions for care after stillbirth and in subsequent pregnancies. However, there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice compounded by inconsistent outcome reporting in research studies. To address this paucity of evidence, we plan to develop a core outcome set for stillbirth care research, through an international consensus process with key stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers. Methods and analysis: The development of this core outcome set will be divided into five distinct phases: (1) Identifying potential outcomes from a mixed-methods systematic review and analysis of interviews with parents who have experienced stillbirth; (2) Creating a comprehensive outcome long-list and piloting of a Delphi questionnaire using think-aloud interviews; (3) Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting an international two-round Delphi survey including high-income, middle-income and low-income countries; (4) Deciding the core outcome set by consensus meetings with key stakeholders and (5) Dissemination and promotion of the core outcome set. A parent and public involvement panel and international steering committee has been convened to coproduce every stage of the development of this core outcome set. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval for the qualitative interviews has been approved by Berkshire Ethics Committee REC Reference 12/SC/0495. Ethical approval for the think-aloud interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings has been awarded from the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 116535). The dissemination strategy is being developed with the parent and public involvement panel and steering committee. Results will be published in peer-rev

Objectives: To explore stakeholders’ and national organisational perspectives on companionship for women/birthing people using antenatal and intrapartum care in England during COVID-19, as part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 study. Setting: Maternity care provision in England. Participants: Interviews were held with 26 national governmental, professional, and service-user organisation leads (July-Dec 2020). Other data included public-facing outputs logged from 25 maternity Trusts (Sept/Oct 2020) and data extracted from 78 documents from eight key governmental, professional, and service-user organisations that informed national maternity care guidance and policy (Feb-Dec 2020). Results: Six themes emerged: ‘Postcode lottery of care’ highlights variations in companionship and visiting practices between trusts/locations, ‘Confusion and stress around ‘rules’’ relates to a lack of and variable information concerning companionship/visiting. ‘Unintended consequences’ concerns the negative impacts of restricted companionship or visiting on women/birthing people and staff, ‘Need for flexibility’ highlights concerns about applying companionship and visiting policies irrespective of need, ‘‘Acceptable’ time for support’ highlights variations in when and if companionship was ‘allowed’ antenatally and intrapartum; and 'Loss of human rights for gain in infection control’ emphasizes how a predominant focus on infection control was at a cost to psychological safety and human rights. Conclusions: Policies concerning companionship and visiting have been inconsistently applied within English maternity services during the COVID-19 pandemic. In some cases, policies were not justified by the level of risk, and were applied indiscriminately regardless of need. There is an urgent need to determine how to sensitively and flexibly balance risks and benefits and optimise outcomes during the current and future crisis situations. Strengths and limitations of this study • This is the first paper to cons

Introduction: Choice of birth setting is important and it is valuable to know how reconfiguring available settings may affect midwifery staffing needs. COVID-19-related health system pressures have meant restriction of community births. We aimed to model the potential of service reconfigurations to offset midwifery staffing shortages. Methods: We adapted the Birthrate Plus method to develop a tool that models the effects on intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing requirements of changing service configurations for low-risk births. We tested our tool on two hypothetical model trusts with different baseline configurations of hospital and community low-risk birth services, representing those most common in England, and applied it to scenarios with midwifery staffing shortages of 15%, 25% and 35%. In scenarios with midwifery staffing shortages above 15%, we modelled restricting community births in line with professional guidance on COVID-19 service reconfiguration. For shortages of 15%, we modelled expanding community births per the target of the Maternity Transformation programme. Results: Expanding community births with 15% shortages required 0.0 and 0.1 whole-time equivalent more midwives in our respective trusts compared with baseline, representing 0% and 0.1% of overall staffing requirements net of shortages. Restricting home births with 25% shortages reduced midwifery staffing need by 0.1 midwives (–0.1% of staffing) and 0.3 midwives (–0.3%). Suspending community births with 35% shortages meant changes of –0.3 midwives (–0.3%) and –0.5 midwives (–0.5%) in the two trusts. Sensitivity analysis showed that our results were robust even under extreme assumptions. Conclusion: Our model found that reconfiguring maternity services in response to shortages has a negligible effect on intrapartum and postnatal midwifery staffing needs. Given this, with lower degrees of shortage, managers can consider increasing community birth options where there is demand. In situation

Objectives: We compared intrapartum interventions and outcomes for mothers, neonates and children up to 16 years, for induction of labour (IOL) versus spontaneous labour onset in uncomplicated term pregnancies with live births. Design: We used population linked data from New South Wales, Australia (2001–2016) for healthy women giving birth at 37+0 to 41+6 weeks. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were performed for intrapartum interventions, postnatal maternal and neonatal outcomes, and long-term child outcomes adjusted for maternal age, country of birth, socioeconomic status, parity and gestational age. Results: Of 474 652 included births, 69 397 (15%) had an IOL for non-medical reasons. Primiparous women with IOL versus spontaneous onset differed significantly for: spontaneous vaginal birth (42.7% vs 62.3%), instrumental birth (28.0% vs 23.9%%), intrapartum caesarean section (29.3% vs 13.8%), epidural (71.0% vs 41.3%), episiotomy (41.2% vs 30.5%) and postpartum haemorrhage (2.4% vs 1.5%). There was a similar trend in outcomes for multiparous women, except for caesarean section which was lower (5.3% vs 6.2%). For both groups, third and fourth degree perineal tears were lower overall in the IOL group: primiparous women (4.2% vs 4.9%), multiparous women (0.7% vs 1.2%), though overall vaginal repair was higher (89.3% vs 84.3%). Following induction, incidences of neonatal birth trauma, resuscitation and respiratory disorders were higher, as were admissions to hospital for infections (ear, nose, throat, respiratory and sepsis) up to 16 years. There was no difference in hospitalisation for asthma or eczema, or for neonatal death (0.06% vs 0.08%), or in total deaths up to 16 years. Conclusion: IOL for non-medical reasons was associated with higher birth interventions, particularly in primiparous women, and more adverse maternal, neonatal and child outcomes for most variables assessed. The size of effect varied by parity and gestational age, making these import

Introduction: Rates of medical interventions in normal labour and birth are increasing. This prospective meta-analysis (PMA) proposes to assess whether the addition of a comprehensive multicomponent birth preparation programme reduces caesarean section (CS) in nulliparous women compared with standard hospital care. Additionally, do participant characteristics, intervention components or hospital characteristics modify the effectiveness of the programme? Methods and analysis: Population: women with singleton vertex pregnancies, no planned caesarean section (CS) or epidural. Intervention: in addition to hospital-based standard care, a comprehensive antenatal education programme that includes multiple components for birth preparation, addressing the three objectives: preparing women and their birth partner/support person for childbirth through education on physiological/hormonal birth (knowledge and understanding); building women’s confidence through psychological preparation (positive mindset) and support their ability to birth without pain relief using evidence-based tools (tools and techniques). The intervention could occur in a hospital-based or community setting. Comparator: standard care alone in hospital-based maternity units. Outcomes: Primary: CS. Secondary: epidural analgesia, mode of birth, perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhage, newborn resuscitation, psychosocial well-being. Subgroup analysis: parity, model of care, maternal risk status, maternal education, maternal socio-economic status, intervention components. Study design: An individual participant data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis (PMA) of randomised controlled trials, including cluster design. Each trial is conducted independently but share core protocol elements to contribute data to the PMA. Participating trials are deemed eligible for the PMA if their results are not yet known outside their Data Monitoring Committees. Ethics and dissemination: Participants in the individual trials will consent

Objective To review what is known about the relationship between stillbirth and inequalities from different disciplinary perspectives to inform stillbirth prevention strategies. Design Systematic review using the meta-narrative method. Setting Studies undertaken in the UK. Data sources Scoping phase: experts in field, exploratory electronic searches and handsearching. Systematic searches phase: Nine databases with no geographical or date restrictions. Non-English language studies were excluded. Study selection Any investigation of stillbirth and inequalities with a UK component. Data extraction and synthesis Three authors extracted data and assessed study quality. Data were summarised, tabulated and presented graphically before synthesis of the unfolding storyline by research tradition; and then of the commonalities, differences and interplays between narratives into resultant summary meta-themes. Results Fifty-four sources from nine distinctive research traditions were included. The evidence of associations between social inequalities and stillbirth spanned 70 years. Across research traditions, there was recurrent evidence of the social gradient remaining constant or increasing, fuelling repeated calls for action (meta-theme 1: something must be done). There was less evidence of an effective response to these calls. Data pertaining to socioeconomic, area and ethnic disparities were routinely collected, but not consistently recorded, monitored or reported in relation to stillbirth (meta-theme 2: problems of precision). Many studies stressed the interplay of socioeconomic status, deprivation or ethnicity with aggregated factors including heritable, structural, environmental and lifestyle factors (meta-theme 3: moving from associations towards intersectionality and intervention(s)). No intervention studies were identified. Conclusion Research investigating inequalities and stillbirth in the UK is underdeveloped. This is despite repeated evidence of an association betw

Objective To assess whether the multitherapy antenatal education ‘CTLB’ (Complementary Therapies for Labour and Birth) Study programme leads to net cost savings. Design Cost analysis of the CTLB Study, using analysis of outcomes and hospital funding data. Methods We take a payer perspective and use Australian Refined Diagnosis-Related Group (AR-DRG) cost data to estimate the potential savings per woman to the payer (government or private insurer). We consider scenarios in which the intervention cost is either borne by the woman or by the payer. Savings are computed as the difference in total cost between the control group and the study group. Results If the cost of the intervention is not borne by the payer, the average saving to the payer was calculated to be $A808 per woman. If the payer covers the cost of the programme, this figure reduces to $A659 since the average cost of delivering the programme was $A149 per woman. All these findings are significant at the 95% confidence level. Significantly more women in the study group experienced a normal vaginal birth, and significantly fewer women in the study group experienced a caesarean section. The main cost saving resulted from the reduced rate of caesarean section in the study group. Conclusion The CTLB antenatal education programme leads to significant savings to payers that come from reduced use of hospital resources. Depending on which perspective is considered, and who is responsible for covering the cost of the programme, the net savings vary from $A659 to $A808 per woman. Compared with the average cost of birth in the control group, we conclude that the programme could lead to a reduction in birth-related healthcare costs of approximately 9%. Trial registration number ACTRN12611001126909.

Objective To synthesise qualitative studies on women’s psychological experiences of physiological childbirth. Design Meta-synthesis. Methods Studies exploring women’s psychological experiences of physiological birth using qualitative methods were eligible. The research group searched the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, SocINDEX and Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection. We contacted the key authors searched reference lists of the collected articles. Quality assessment was done independently using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Studies were synthesised using techniques of meta-ethnography. Results Eight studies involving 94 women were included. Three third order interpretations were identified: ‘maintaining self-confidence in early labour’, ‘withdrawing within as labour intensifies’ and ‘the uniqueness of the birth experience’. Using the first, second and third order interpretations, a line of argument developed that demonstrated ‘the empowering journey of giving birth’ encompassing the various emotions, thoughts and behaviours that women experience during birth. Conclusion Giving birth physiologically is an intense and transformative psychological experience that generates a sense of empowerment. The benefits of this process can be maximised through physical, emotional and social support for women, enhancing their belief in their ability to birth and not disturbing physiology unless it is necessary. Healthcare professionals need to take cognisance of the empowering effects of the psychological experience of physiological childbirth. Further research to validate the results from this study is necessary. PROSPERO registration number CRD42016037072.

To establish the views and experiences of healthcare professionals in relation to interventions targeted at them to reduce unnecessary caesareans. Qualitative evidence synthesis. Studies undertaken in high-income, middle-income and low-income settings. Seven databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Embase, Global Index Medicus, POPLINE and African Journals Online). Studies published between 1985 and June 2017, with no language or geographical restrictions. We hand-searched reference lists and key citations using Google Scholar. Qualitative or mixed-method studies reporting health professionals' views. Two authors independently assessed study quality prior to extraction of primary data and authors' interpretations. The data were compared and contrasted, then grouped into summary of findings (SoFs) statements, themes and a line of argument synthesis. All SoFs were Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessed. 17 papers were included, involving 483 health professionals from 17 countries (nine high-income, six middle-income and two low-income). Fourteen SoFs were identified, resulting in three core themes: p (four SoFs); (2) (five SoFs); and (3) (five SoFs). The resulting line of argument suggests three key mechanisms of effect for change or resistance to change: prior beliefs about birth; willingness or not to engage with change, especially where this entailed potential loss of income or status (including medicolegal barriers); and capacity or not to influence local community and healthcare service norms and values relating to caesarean provision. For maternity care health professionals, there is a synergistic relationship between their underpinning philosophy of birth, the social and cultural context they are working within and the extent to which they were prepared to negotiate within health system resources to reduce caesarean rates. These findings identify potential mechanisms of effect that could improve the design and eff

Objective To obtain the views of bereaved parents about their interactions with health care staff when their baby died just before, or during, labour. Design Qualitative in-depth interview study, following an earlier national survey. All interviews took place during 2011, either face-to-face, or on the telephone. Data analysis was informed by the constant comparative technique from grounded theory. Setting Every National Health Service (NHS) region in the United Kingdom was represented. Participants Bereaved parents who had completed an e-questionnaire, via the website of Sands (Stillbirth And Neonatal Death Society). Of the 304 survey respondents who gave provisional consent, 29 families were approached to take part, based on maximum variation sampling and data saturation. Results 22 families (n=25) participated. Births took place between 2002 and 2010. Specific practices were identified that were particularly helpful to parents. Respondents talked about their interactions with hospital staff as having profound effects on their capacity to cope, both during labour, and in the longer term. The data generated three key themes: ‘enduring and multiple loss’: ‘making irretrievable moments precious’; and the ‘best care possible to the worst imaginable.’ The overall synthesis of findings is encapsulated in the meta-theme ‘One chance to get it right.’ This pertains to the parents and family themselves, clinical and support staff who care for them directly, and the NHS organisations that indirectly provide the resources and governance procedures that may (or may not) foster a caring ethos. Conclusion Positive memories and outcomes following stillbirth depend as much on genuinely caring staff attitudes and behaviours as on high quality clinical procedures. All staff who encounter parents in this situation need to see each meeting as their one chance to get it right.