Search

Objective: To investigate the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during childbirth in Luxembourg from women's perspectives. Methods: Women giving birth in facilities in Luxembourg between March 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, answered a validated online WHO standards‐based questionnaire as part of the multicountry IMAgINE EURO study. Descriptive and multivariate quantile regression analyses were performed. Results: A total of 493 women were included, representing 5.2% of women giving birth in the four maternity hospitals in Luxembourg during the study period. Most quality measures suggested high QMNC, although specific gaps were observed: 13.4% (n = 66) of women reported not being treated with dignity, 9.1% (n = 45) experienced abuse, 42.9% (n = 30) were not asked for consent prior to instrumental vaginal birth, 39.3% (n = 118) could not choose their birth position, 27% (n = 133) did not exclusively breastfeed at discharge (without significant differences over time), 20.5% (n = 101) reported an insufficient number of healthcare professionals, 20% (n = 25) did not receive information on the newborn after cesarean, and 41.2% (n = 203) reported lack of information on newborn danger signs before discharge. Multivariate analyses highlighted higher reported QMNC indexes among women born outside Luxembourg and delivering with a gynecologist, and significantly lower QMNC indexes in women with the highest education levels and those delivering in the hospital offering some private services. Conclusions: Despite maternal reports suggesting an overall high QMNC in Luxembourg, improvements are needed in specific aspects of care and communication, mostly related to maternal autonomy, respect, and support, but also number and competencies of the health workforce. Synopsis: Women giving birth in Luxembourg during the 16 months of the COVID‐19 pandemic reported gaps in quality of maternal and newborn care around the time of childbirth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This article addresses the problem of how to ensure consistency in messages communicating public health recommendations on environmental health and on child health. The World Health Organization states that the protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding rank among the most effective interventions to improve child survival. International public health policy recommends exclusive breastfeeding for six months, followed by continued breastfeeding with the addition of safe and adequate complementary foods for two years and beyond. Biomonitoring of breastmilk is used as an indicator of environmental pollution ending up in mankind. This article will therefore present the biomonitoring results of concentrations of residues in breastmilk in a wider context. These results are the mirror that reflects the chemical substances accumulated in the bodies of both men and women in the course of a lifetime. The accumulated substances in our bodies may have an effect on male or female reproductive cells; they are present in the womb, directly affecting the environment of the fragile developing foetus; they are also present in breastmilk. Evidence of man-made chemical residues in breastmilk can provide a shock tactic to push for stronger laws to protect the environment. However, messages about chemicals detected in breastmilk can become dramatized by the media and cause a backlash against breastfeeding, thus contradicting the public health messages issued by the World Health Organization. Analyses of breastmilk show the presence of important nutritional components and live protective factors active in building up the immune system, in gastro intestinal maturation, in immune defence and in providing antiviral, antiparasitic and antibacterial activity. Through cohort studies researchers in environmental health have concluded that long-term breastfeeding counterbalances the effect of prenatal exposure to chemicals causing delay in mental and psychomotor development. Therefore caution should be exercised when presenting the results of biomonitoring of breastmilk. The results should be a motivation to enact strong legislation on chemicals and review the use of chemical substances present in breastmilk, but the results should not be used to undermine the confidence in breastmilk as the optimal food for infants and young children.

Marina Ferreira Rea is a Brazilian medical doctor. She has a masters and a doctorate degree in public health from the University of São Paulo (USP). She specialized in breastfeeding at Wellstart International, and completed post-doctoral research at Columbia University, New York, USA, focusing on working women and breastfeeding. She was a researcher at the Health Institute at Columbia University in New York, the Center for Population and Family Health, and at the postgraduate studies, Nutrition in Public Health, University of São Paulo, where she advised many students and published many articles and books (a few selected below). She was a Coordinator of International Breastfeeding Actions at the World Health Organization (Geneva), in the early 1990s, when actions like the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, breastfeeding counseling, and other courses were started. During this same period, the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA) and World Breastfeeding Week were initiated. In 1981 she participated in the launching of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. Marina Rea is a member of the International Baby Food Action Network and its Latin American policy committee, and is the founder of the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) Brazil group. Since 2017, she has been a member of the IBFAN Global Council. She is now retired but continues to volunteer as an IBFAN member. She has two daughters and four grandchildren. A more detailed curriculum vitae in Portuguese can be found here: http://lattes.cnpq.br/8193850878281835 (MR = Marina Rea; MA = Maryse Arendt) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) meeting taking place from September 27 to October 7, 2021. Topics include International labelling standards and guidelines developed by the committee empowering consumers; and proposing guidelines to front-of-pack nutrition labelling and leaving it to countries for deciding the own system.

In order to maximize profits from sales of breastmilk substitutes, manufacturers use a whole gamut of strategies to interfere with the effective implementation of policies that protect, promote, and support breastfeeding (e.g., the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes with its subsequent World Health Assembly resolutions and the Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding). Their strategies create, among other problems, personal and institutional conflicts of interest. Effective Conflict of Interest policies are therefore needed for ensuring that governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and health professionals can protect their independence, integrity, and credibility in order to work in the best interests of children. Conflicts of interest are discussed by Dr Lida Lhotska and Dr Judith Richter, who have been actively involved in these issues internationally. Lida Lhotska holds a BSc in Biology and a PhD in Anthropology. Her international work spans over 25 years. She headed the Infant Feeding and Care team for UNICEF and subsequently joined the IBFAN-Geneva Infant Feeding Association team, always focusing on advancing the protection of breastfeeding through legal and other policy measures. Judith Richter has a multidisciplinary background combining knowledge in the humanities with health sciences (PhD Social Sciences; MA Development Studies; MSc Pharmaceutical Sciences). Her work as a freelance researcher for United Nations agencies, governments, and civil society organizations and networks has centered on safeguarding their capacity to hold transnational corporations accountable. In her interview, Judith Richter explains why conflict of interest regulation matters to health professionals working in the field of lactation. (MA = Maryse Arendt; LL = Lida Lhotska; JR = Judith Richter) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Annelies Allain has been at the forefront of global efforts to support and promote breastfeeding for more than 30 years. Her accomplishments continue to affect all of us who work with breastfeeding families. Born in the Netherlands in 1945, Annelies Allain-van Elk received a scholarship and completed a BA from the University of Minnesota, Duluth, USA. Back in Europe, she obtained a BA in French language and literature (University of Geneva, Switzerland) as well as a translator's diploma. After 4 years working in West Africa and visits to South America, she returned to Geneva to obtain an MA in development studies. She is fluent in English, French, and Dutch and has working knowledge of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and German. Ms. Allain was a co-founder of IBFAN (1979) and the coordinator of IBFAN Europe (1980-1984). In 1984, she moved to Penang, Malaysia, and IBFAN work soon took over as a full-time job. She was instrumental in developing the Code Documentation Centre (1985) and by 1991 it became a foundation (ICDC) registered in the Netherlands. Subsequently, the Centre has trained over 2,000 officials from 148 countries about the International Code, making it the world's top International Code implementation institution. Among her many other education and advocacy activities, Ms. Allain was a co-founder of WABA (1990) and for many years has been a consultant with UNICEF and WHO's Western Pacific Regional Office on International Code implementation and monitoring. In this interview she provides a firsthand account of how most of the major global breastfeeding protection efforts influencing our current situation came into being. (This is a verbatim interview: MA = Maryse Arendt; AA = Annelies Allain.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess progress in the protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding in Europe. Design: Data for 2002 and 2007 were gathered with the same questionnaire. Of thirty countries, twenty-nine returned data for 2002, twenty-four for 2007. Results: The number of countries with national policies complying with WHO recommendations increased. In 2007, six countries lacked a national policy, three a national plan, four a national breast-feeding coordinator and committee. Little improvement was reported in pre-service training; however, the number of countries with good coverage in the provision of WHO/UNICEF courses for inservice training increased substantially, as reflected in a parallel increase in the number of Baby Friendly Hospitals and the proportion of births taking place in them. Little improvement was reported as far as implementation of the International Code on Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes is concerned. Except for Ireland and the UK, where some improvement occurred, no changes were reported on maternity protection. Due to lack of standard methods, it was difficult to compare rates of breast-feeding among countries. With this in mind, slight improvements in the rates of initiation, exclusivity and duration were reported by countries where data at two points in time were available. Conclusions: Breast-feeding rates continue to fall short of global recommendations. National policies are improving slowly but are hampered by the lack of action on maternity protection and the International Code. Pre-service training and standard monitoring of breast-feeding rates are the areas where more efforts are needed to accelerate progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health workers' (HWs') perspectives on the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) are not routinely collected. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to document HWs' perspectives on QMNC around childbirth in 12 World Health Organization (WHO) European countries., Methods: HWs involved in maternal/neonatal care for at least one year between March 2020 and March 2023 answered an online validated WHO standards-based questionnaire collecting 40 quality measures for improving QMNC. A QMNC index (score 0-400) was calculated as a synthetic measure., Results: Data from 4143 respondents were analysed. For 39 out of 40 quality measures, at least 20% of HWs reported a 'need for improvement', with large variations across countries. Effective training on healthy women/newborns management (n = 2748, 66.3%), availability of informed consent job aids (n = 2770, 66.9%), and effective training on women/newborns rights (n = 2714, 65.5%) presented the highest proportion of HWs stating 'need for improvement'. Overall, 64.8% (n = 2684) of respondents declared that HWs' numbers were insufficient for appropriate care (66.3% in Portugal and 86.6% in Poland), and 22.4% described staff censorship (16.3% in Germany and 56.7% in Poland). The reported QMNC index was low in all countries (Poland median (MD) = 210.60, interquartile range (IQR) = 155.71, 273.57; Norway MD = 277.86; IQR = 244.32, 308.30). The 'experience of care' domain presented in eight countries had significantly lower scores than the other domains (P < 0.001). Over time, there was a significant monthly linear decrease in the QMNC index (P < 0.001), lacking correlation with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic trends (P > 0.05). Multivariate analyses confirmed large QMNC variation by country. HWs with <10 years of experience, HWs from public facilities, and midwives rated QMNC with significantly lower scores (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: HWs from 12 European countries reported significant gaps in QMNC, lacking association with COVID-19 pandemic trends. Routine monitoring of QMNC and tailored actions are needed to improve health services for the benefit of both users and providers., Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04847336., Competing Interests: Disclosure of interests: The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests., (Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic by facility type among 16 European countries, comparing rates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean., Methods: Women who gave birth in the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020, to February 7, 2022, answered a validated online questionnaire. Rates of instrumental birth, instrumental vaginal birth, and cesarean, and a QMNC index were calculated for births in public versus private facilities., Results: Responses from 25 206 participants were analyzed. Women giving birth in private compared with public facilities reported significantly more frequent total cesarean (32.5% vs 19.0%; aOR 1.70; 95% CI 1.52-1.90), elective cesarean (17.3% vs 7.8%; aOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.65-2.19), and emergency cesarean before labor (7.4% vs 3.9%; aOR 1.39; 95% CI 1.14-1.70) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons), with analyses by country confirming these results. QMNC index results were heterogeneous across countries and regions in the same country and were largely affected by geographical distribution of regions rather than by type of facility alone., Conclusion: The study confirms that births in private facilities have higher odds of cesarean. It also suggests that QMNC should be closely monitored in all facilities to achieve high-quality care, independent of facility type or geographical distribution., Gov Identifier: NCT04847336., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Objective: To describe the perception of quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) around the time of childbirth among migrant and nonmigrant women in Europe., Methods: Women who gave birth at a health facility in 11 countries of the WHO European Region from March 2020 to July 2021 were invited to answer an online questionnaire including demographics and childbirth experience. Data were analyzed and compared for 1781 migrant and 20 653 nonmigrant women., Results: Migrant women who experienced labor perceived slightly more difficulties in attending routine antenatal visits (41.2% vs 39.4%; P = 0.001), more barriers in accessing facilities (32.9% vs 29.9%; P = 0.001), lack of timely care (14.7% vs 13.0%; P = 0.025), inadequate room comfort and equipment (9.2% vs 8.5%; P = 0.004), inadequate number of women per room (9.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.039), being prevented from staying with their baby as they wished (7.8% vs 6.9%; P = 0.011), or suffering abuse (14.5% vs 12.7%; P = 0.022) compared with nonmigrant women. For women who had a prelabor cesarean, migrant women were more likely not to receive pain relief after birth (16.8% vs.13.5%; P = 0.039) and less likely to provide informal payment (1.8% vs 4.4%; P = 0.005) compared with nonmigrant women. Overall, the QMNC index was not significantly different for migrant compared with nonmigrant women., Conclusion: Gaps in overall QMNC were reported by both migrant and nonmigrant women, with improvements to healthcare necessary for all., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Objective: To investigate potential associations between individual and country-level factors and medicalization of birth in 15 European countries during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Online anonymous survey of women who gave birth in 2020-2021. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression models estimating associations between indicators of medicalization (cesarean, instrumental vaginal birth [IVB], episiotomy, fundal pressure) and proxy variables related to care culture and contextual factors at the individual and country level., Results: Among 27 173 women, 24.4% (n = 6650) had a cesarean and 8.8% (n = 2380) an IVB. Among women with IVB, 41.9% (n = 998) reported receiving fundal pressure. Among women with spontaneous vaginal births, 22.3% (n = 4048) had an episiotomy. Less respectful care, as perceived by the women, was associated with higher levels of medicalization. For example, women who reported having a cesarean, IVB, or episiotomy reported not feeling treated with dignity more frequently than women who did not have those interventions (odds ratio [OR] 1.37; OR 1.61; OR 1.51, respectively; all: P < 0.001). Country-level variables contributed to explaining some of the variance between countries., Conclusion: We recommend a greater emphasis in health policies on promotion of respectful and patient-centered care approaches to birth to enhance women's experiences of care, and the development of a European-level indicator to monitor medicalization of reproductive care., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)