Search

AIM: To report an analysis of the concept of vulnerability associated with pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period.BACKGROUND: The concept of vulnerability during childbirth is complex and the term, 'to be vulnerable' frequently attains a vague application. Analysis about vulnerability is needed to guide policy, practice, education and research. Clarity around the concept has the potential to improve outcomes for women.DESIGN: Concept analysis.DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, Psychinfo, MEDLINE, MIDIRS and ASSIA and limited to between January 2000 - June 2014. Data were collected over 12 months during 2014.METHODS: This concept analysis drew on Morse's qualitative methods.RESULTS: Vulnerability during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period can be defined by three main attributes: (a) Threat; (b) Barrier; and (c) Repair. Key attributes have the potential to influence outcome for women. Inseparable sub-attributes such as mother and baby attachment, the woman's free will and choice added a level of complexity about the concept.CONCLUSION: This concept analysis has clarified how the term vulnerability is currently understood and used in relation to pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period. Vulnerability should be viewed as a complex phenomenon rather than a singular concept. A 'vulnerability journey plan' has the potential to identify how reparative interventions may develop the woman's capacity for resilience and influence the degree of vulnerability experienced. Methodology based around complex theory should be explored in future work about vulnerability.

Background Telephone communication is increasingly being accepted as a useful form of support within health care. There is some evidence that telephone support may be of benefit in specific areas of maternity care such as to support breastfeeding and for women at risk of depression. There is a plethora of telephone-based interventions currently being used in maternity care. It is therefore timely to examine which interventions may be of benefit, which are ineffective, and which may be harmful. Objectives To assess the effects of telephone support during pregnancy and the first six weeks post birth, compared with routine care, on maternal and infant outcomes. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 January 2013) and reference lists of all retrieved studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials, comparing telephone support with routine care or with another supportive intervention aimed at pregnant women and women in the first six weeks post birth. Data collection and analysis Three review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy, carried out data extraction and assessed risk of bias. Data were entered by one review author and checked by a second. Where necessary, we contacted trial authors for further information on methods or results. Main results We have included data from 27 randomised trials involving 12,256 women. All of the trials examined telephone support versus usual care (no additional telephone support). We did not identify any trials comparing different modes of telephone support (for example, text messaging versus one-to-one calls). All but one of the trials were carried out in high-resource settings. The majority of studies examined support provided via telephone conversations between women and health professionals although a small number of trials included telephone support from peers. In two trials women received automated text messages. Many of

Background: Caesarean section rates are progressively rising in many parts of the world. One suggested reason is increasing requests by women for caesarean section in the absence of clear medical indications, such as placenta praevia, HIV infection, contracted pelvis and, arguably, breech presentation or previous caesarean section. The reported benefits of planned caesarean section include greater safety for the baby, less pelvic floor trauma for the mother, avoidance of labour pain and convenience. The potential disadvantages, from observational studies, include increased risk of major morbidity or mortality for the mother, adverse psychological sequelae, and problems in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine scar rupture and greater risk of stillbirth and neonatal morbidity. An unbiased assessment of advantages and disadvantages would assist discussion of what has become a contentious issue in modern obstetrics. Objectives: To assess, from randomised trials, the effects on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, and on maternal psychological morbidity, of planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth in women with no clear clinical indication for caesarean section. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009). Selection criteria: All comparisons of intention to perform caesarean section and intention for women to give birth vaginally; random allocation to treatment and control groups; adequate allocation concealment; women at term with single fetuses with cephalic presentations and no clear medical indication for caesarean section. Data collection and analysis: We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria. Main results: There were no included trials. Authors' conclusions: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials, upon which to base any practice recommendations regarding planned caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. In the absence of trial data, the

Objective To explore whether women view decision-making surrounding vaginal or caesarean birth as their choice. Design Longitudinal cohort study utilising quantitative (questionnaire, routinely collected data) and qualitative (in-depth interviews) methods simultaneously. Setting A large hospital providing National Health Service maternity care in the UK. Sample Four-hundred and fifty-four primigravid women. Methods Women completed up to three questionnaires between their antenatal booking appointment and delivery. Amongst these women, 153 were interviewed at least once during pregnancy (between 24 and 36 weeks) and/or after 12 moths after birth. Data were also obtained from women’s hospital delivery records. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed (survey and delivery data). Interview data were analysed using a seven-stage sequential form of qualitative analysis. Results Whilst many women supported the principle of choice, they identified how, in practice their autonomy was limited by individual circumstance and available care provision. All women felt that concerns about their baby’s or their own health should take precedence over personal preference. Moreover, expressing a preference for either vaginal or caesarean birth was inherently problematic as choice until the time of delivery was neither static nor final. Women did not have autonomous choice over their actual birth method, but neither did they necessarily want it. Conclusions The results of this large exploratory study suggest that choice may not be the best concept through which to approach the current arrangements for birth in the UK. Moreover, they challenge the notion of choice that currently prevails in international debates about caesarean delivery for maternal request.

Objective To explore whether women view decision-making surrounding vaginal or caesarean birth as their choice. Design Longitudinal cohort study utilising quantitative (questionnaire, routinely collected data) and qualitative (in-depth interviews) methods simultaneously. Setting A large hospital providing National Health Service maternity care in the UK. Sample Four-hundred and fifty-four primigravid women. Methods Women completed up to three questionnaires between their antenatal booking appointment and delivery. Amongst these women, 153 were interviewed at least once during pregnancy (between 24 and 36 weeks) and/or after 12 moths after birth. Data were also obtained from women’s hospital delivery records. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed (survey and delivery data). Interview data were analysed using a seven-stage sequential form of qualitative analysis. Results Whilst many women supported the principle of choice, they identified how, in practice their autonomy was limited by individual circumstance and available care provision. All women felt that concerns about their baby’s or their own health should take precedence over personal preference. Moreover, expressing a preference for either vaginal or caesarean birth was inherently problematic as choice until the time of delivery was neither static nor final. Women did not have autonomous choice over their actual birth method, but neither did they necessarily want it. Conclusions The results of this large exploratory study suggest that choice may not be the best concept through which to approach the current arrangements for birth in the UK. Moreover, they challenge the notion of choice that currently prevails in international debates about caesarean delivery for maternal request.