Search

Normal birth has major benefits for women and infants. Nevertheless, during the last few decades, the advancement in technology and an increasing domination of obstetrician-led childbirths have resulted in the medicalization of childbirth. Midwives are interested in amending this trend and aim to support women to achieve the best possible birth experience for them. This study aimed to explore midwives' experiences on the facilitators and barriers of normal birth in conventional obstetric units. A descriptive qualitative study. Three focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Recurrent themes were identified and formulated. Feedback from data were analysed using thematic analysis. Investigator triangulation was used during the analysis. Midwives from eleven different public hospitals in Catalonia participated in the study. A purposive sample of 33 midwives participated in the focus groups. Midwives identified several factors that complicated their task of facilitating normal birth. Barriers included: (1) inadequate institutional support; (2) existing obstetrician-led practices, (3) lack of evidence-based practice and (4) midwives' lack of awareness of professional competencies. Factors facilitating normal birth included: (1) midwives' positive perceptions of normal birth, (2) midwives' additional effort and (3) women's awareness of normal birth. Midwives wishing to promote normal birth in obstetric units face a number of challenges and often feel unsupported. Nonetheless, the midwives perceive the increasing women's demand for normal births as an opportunity to implement changes in such a way that women are involved in the decision-making process and midwives act as their advocates. There is a need to increase the midwifery workforce and enhance regulations and funding strategies to support their practice as well as normal birth. Policy makers in settings without well-functioning midwife-led care should consider implementing this model after successfully scaling up of the number of midwives and ensuring an effective midwifery training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective:: The aim of this study was to evaluate the annhypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor imidapril and the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist candesartan in mild to moderate essential hypertension. Methods:: The trial was conducted at 8 centers across Portugal and Spain (the Iberian Multicenter Imidapril Study on Hypertension [IMISH] Study Group). Patients aged between 30 and 70 years with essential hypertension were eligible. Following a 2- to 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive imidapril at doses of up to 20 mg/d, or candesartan at doses up to 16 mg/d, once daily in a double-blind, parallel-group design with a 12-week active-treatment period. To achieve the target systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) of <140/<90 mm Hg, imidapril was titrated from 5 to 20 mg/d and candesartan was titrated from 4 to 16 mg/d. The main end point was the change from baseline in sitting blood pressure (BP) at trough. Secondary end points were response rate, evaluation of SBP and DBP throughout the study, and change of SBP and DBP in subgroup of patients with moderate hypertension, as well as incidence and severity of adverse events related to treatment reported throughout the study. Results:: The intent-to-treat analysis consisted of 122 patients (imidapril group, 60 patients; 32 men, 28 women; mean [SD] age, 54.7 [9.2] years; white race, 59 [99.2%], Hispanic race, 1 [0.8%]; mean [SD] weight, 80.1 [12.8] kg; candesartan group, 62 patients; 36 men, 26 women; mean [SD] age, 53.9 [9.9] years; white race, 62 [100%]; mean [SD] weight, 77.6 [14.1] kg). In the imidapril group, the mean (SD) SBP and DBP were, respectively, 155.7 (10.2) and 96.7 (4.7) mm Hg at baseline and 139.4 (11.9) and 86.9 (7.6) mm Hg at the end of the 12-week treatment period (visit 5); SBP had decreased significantly from baseline, by 10.5% (mean [SD] Δ, −16.3 [12.3] mm Hg [95% CI, −19.5 to −13.1; P < 0.001]) and DBP had decreased significantly, by 10.1% (mean [SD] A, -9.8 [7.8] mm Hg [95% CI, −11.8 to −7.8; P < 0.001]). In the candesartan group, the mean (SD) SBP and DBP values were, respectively, 158.4 [11.2] and 98.3 [4.1] mm Hg at baseline and 139.8 [12.5] and 87.6 7.5] mm Hg at 12 weeks, corresponding to decreases of 11.7% in SBP (mean [SD] A, −18.6 [12.8] mm Hg [95% CI, −21.9 to −15.4; P < 0.001]) and 10.9% in DBP (mean [SD] A, −10.7 [7.3] mm Hg [95% CI, −12.5 to −8.8; P < 0.001]). Response rates were 78.3% (47/60) with imidapril and 69.4% (43/62) with candesartan, and BP normalization (<140/<90 mm Hg) was achieved in 55.0% (33/60) of patients with imidapril and 45.2% (28/62) of patients with candesartan. The incidences of adverse events were similar between groups. Most (73.9%) adverse events were mild in intensity. A serious adverse event (severe anxiety) was reported in the candesartan group and led to study discontinuation. No cases of dry cough or hypotension were reported. Conclusions:: The results of this study suggest that imidapril once daily at doses up to 20 mg and candesartan once daily at doses up to 16 mg were effective in this population of mildly to moderately hypertensive patients. Both treatments were well tolerated. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]