Search

Introduction A positive perinatal experience facilitates a smooth transition to motherhood and enhances the development of a strong bond between mother and newborn, contributing to maternal and societal wellbeing. Given the medicalization of childbirth in Cyprus, the examination of mothers’ experiences of perinatal care becomes imperative. Aim To investigate mothers’ experiences of care during the perinatal period and to identify factors related to the provision of maternal care that contribute to the interpretation of these experiences. Methods The study draws on data from the European survey “Babies Born Better”, an online survey utilizing a mixed-methods approach to explore women’s experiences of maternity care across Europe. The study population were women who had given birth in Cyprus over a 5-year period (2013–2018). Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS v22, while qualitative data were analyzed through inductive content analysis. Findings A total of 360 mothers participated in the study. In rating their overall experience, 24.2% stated that they had a “bad experience”, 11.1% a “good experience”,13.9% a “very good experience”, and 13,3% a “very bad experience”. The top three sub-factors of the overall experience which received positive evaluation were “Relationship with health care professionals” (33.6%), “Birth environment and care” (11.4%), and “Breastfeeding guidance” (10.8%). The qualitative analysis yielded five themes: “Relationship with health care professionals”, “Breastfeeding establishment”, “Childbirth rights”, “Birth environment and services” and “Choice of mode of birth”. Conclusion Mothers in Cyprus wish to have respectful maternity care. They need maternity health care professionals to respect their dignity and ask for evidence-based information with shared decision making. Mothers in Cyprus expect to have their childbirth rights safeguarded, to have better support from HCP, and to receive humanized care. The perinatal care provided in Cypr

Introduction Despite the interconnectedness of the European Union, there are significant variations in pregnant women’s legal status as migrants and therefore their ability to access maternity care. Limited access to maternity care can lead to higher morbidity and mortality rates in migrant women and their babies. This study aimed to investigate and compare maternal health access policies and the context in which they operate across European countries for women who have migrated and are not considered citizens of the host country. Methods The study adopted a mixed-methods research design exploring policies on migrant women’s access to maternity care across the migration regimes. Data were extracted from legal documents and research reports to construct a new typology to identify the inclusiveness of policies determining access to maternity care for migrant women. Results This study found inconsistency in the categorisation of migrants across countries and significant disparities in access to maternity care for migrant women within and between European countries. A lack of connection between access policies and migration regimes, along with a lack of fit between policies and public support for migration suggests a low level of path dependency and leaves space for policy innovation. Discussion Inequities and inconsistencies in policies across European countries affect non-citizen migrant women’s access to maternity care. These policies act to reproduce structural inequalities which compromise the health of vulnerable women and newborns in reception countries. There is an urgent need to address this inequity, which discriminates against these already marginalised women.

Community-based peer volunteer interventions are increasingly used with people who are asylum seekers and refugees accessing health services. There is a dearth of evidence evaluating the benefits of volunteering for asylum seeking or refugee volunteers. Volunteers may have poor mental health and feel socially isolated due to their experiences as refugees and asylum seekers and may struggle or be unable to obtain paid employment. Volunteering in other contexts has been found to be beneficial to the health and well-being of the volunteer. This paper reports on an aspect of a wider study evaluating the community-based Health Access for Refugees Project, with the aim of exploring the impact of volunteering on the health and well-being of the peer (asylum seeker or refugee) volunteer. In 2020, we conducted qualitative semistructured interviews by phone with 15 volunteers who were asylum seekers or refugees. The interviews were audio recorded, data were transcribed verbatim and the data set was thematically analysed. We found that the positive relationships which developed and the training received through volunteering boosted volunteers' mental well-being. They felt motivated and confident in helping others, felt a sense of belonging and this reduced their social isolation. They also believed they benefited personally, helping their access to health services, and preparing them for future education, training or a career. In light of the beneficial nature of volunteering identified in this study, establishing more volunteering opportunities for this population and other marginalised groups with poor mental health is recommended. However, more research is needed to assess both the long-term impact of the role in terms of the peer volunteer's health and well-being, and the societal benefit of people moving on, integrating and contributing to society.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in rapid changes in many areas of health care worldwide.1 Some organisational and governance controls on innovation have been relaxed, to enable rapid adaptation to changing circumstances. The speed of innovation raises a range of ethical, governance and organisational issues. It is important to assess what changes have been instituted, which ones should be maintained, and how to encourage effective innovations in future. Maternity care provides an exemplar case within the broader health care setting, given the imperative to provide both safe and personalised care for optimal outcomes. Some pandemic-related changes in maternity services, such as restricting women’s opportunities for companionship during ultrasound scans or throughout labour, or limiting parental visiting to neonatal units, have been associated with psychological harm.2 Other changes provide more positive impacts, including reports of more individualised and efficient care associated with the increased use of telemedicine.3 We undertook a documentary analysis of national policy and service-user organisation responses to the pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL), as part of the Achieving Safe and Personalised Maternity Care In Response to Epidemics (ASPIRE COVID-19) study. The overall aim of ASPIRE COVID-19 is to identify ‘what works’ in providing maternity care during the current and future pandemics, or similar health crises. The NL was chosen as the comparator to the UK because there were known differences in the organisation of maternity services during the COVID-19 pandemic between the two countries, especially for place of birth. Here we report on activities described as new or expanded innovations in 290 documents produced by seventeen key professional and service-user organisations in the NL and the UK between February and December 2020 (see Table 1). We included strategic papers, guidelines, protocols, and updates for hea

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

The research team at South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust (SWFT) worked with the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) on the ASPIRE (Achieving Safe and Personalised maternity care In Response to Epidemics) COVID-19 study. We conducted 55 stakeholder interviews to gain insight into the hospital's response to the pandemic. Working on the project presented many opportunities and challenges for us, including qualitative interviewing, using digital technology and engaging representative populations. This article, the fourth in the series, explains how the ASPIRE study gave us a unique opportunity to be part of a rare qualitative, midwifery-led research project which we fully embraced. We hope that this is the start of a new era of research that encourages midwife-led projects and qualitative studies.

Background: The national health care response to coronavirus (COVID-19) has varied between countries. The United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) have comparable maternity and neonatal care systems, and experienced similar numbers of COVID-19 infections, but had different organisational responses to the pandemic. Understanding why and how similarities and differences occurred in these two contexts could inform optimal care in normal circumstances, and during future crises. Aim: To compare the UK and Dutch COVID-19 maternity and neonatal care responses in three key domains: choice of birthplace, companionship, and families in vulnerable situations. Method: A multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders. Findings: Both countries had an infection control focus, with less emphasis on the impact of restrictions, especially for families in vulnerable situations. Differences included care providers’ fear of contracting COVID-19; the extent to which community and personalised care was embedded in the care system before the pandemic; and how far multidisciplinary collaboration and service-user involvement were prioritised. Conclusion: We recommend that countries should 1) make a systematic plan for crisis decision-making before a serious event occurs, and that this must include authentic service-user involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, and protection of staff wellbeing 2) integrate women’s and families’ values into the maternity and neonatal care system, ensuring equitable inclusion of the most vulnerable and 3) strengthen community provision to ensure system wide resilience to future shocks from pandemics, or other unexpected large-scale events.

Background: Minoritised ethnic perinatal women can experience judgemental and stigmatising care due to systemic racism. Discriminatory care contributes to increased risks of poor maternal and infant outcomes, including higher rates of mental ill-health. This study aimed to explore minoritised ethnic women’s experiences of maternity services, including maternity care and mental health support, within a North-West England locality. Here we use an equity lens to report the findings that describe if and how women’s personal, cultural, and spiritual needs were met, their experiences of discriminatory and prejudicial care, and to identify recommendations for service provision. Methods: A mixed-methods study was undertaken comprising an online survey, interviews, and community consultations. Questions explored access to and experiences of antenatal care and education; information, communication, and choice; experiences of (dis)respect and judgement; mental health needs and support; cultural/religious needs and support; and overall experiences of maternity care. Eligibility criteria were: women, 18+ years, from self-reported minoritised ethnic backgrounds, who had given birth in the previous 2 years and received maternity care in the locality. Surveys were available in seven languages and distributed via social media, mother-baby groups, and community locations. English-speaking survey participants were invited to take part in a follow-up interview. Community leaders/staff were approached to collect data on behalf of the study team. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively (n, %) and merged with qualitative data into descriptive themes. Results: Overall, 104 women provided data; most self-identified as Asian (65.0%) or Black (10.7%) and were aged between 30-34 (32.0%) or 25-29 years (23.3%). Four descriptive themes are reported: ‘accessing care’ details variations and barriers in accessing maternity care; ‘communication needs, and resources’ describes views on adaption

Background The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on women’s birth experiences. To date, there are no studies that use both quantitative and qualitative data to compare women’s birth experiences before and during the pandemic, across more than one country. Aim To examine women’s birth experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare the experiences of women who gave birth in the United Kingdom (UK) or the Netherlands (NL) either before or during the pandemic. Method This study is based on analyses of quantitative and qualitative data from the online Babies Born Better survey. Responses recorded by women giving birth in the UK and the NL between June and December 2020 have been used, encompassing women who gave birth between 2017 and 2020. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and chi-squared tests were performed to compare women who gave birth pre- versus during pandemic and separately by country. Qualitative data was analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Findings Respondents in both the UK and the NL who gave birth during the pandemic were as likely, or, if they had a self-reported above average standard of life, more likely to rate their labour and birth experience positively when compared to women who gave birth pre-pandemic. This was despite the fact that those labouring in the pandemic reported a lack of support and limits placed on freedom of choice. Two potential explanatory themes were identified in the qualitative data: respondents had lower expectations of care during the pandemic, and they appreciated the efforts of staff to give individualised care, despite the rules. Conclusion Our study implies that many women labouring during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced restrictions, but their experience was mitigated by staff actions. However, personalised care should not be maintained by the good will of care providers, but should be a priority in maternity care policy to benefit all service users equitably.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on women’s birth experiences. To date, there are no studies that use both quantitative and qualitative data to compare women’s birth experiences before and during the pandemic, across more than one country. Aim To examine women’s birth experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare the experiences of women who gave birth in the United Kingdom (UK) or the Netherlands (NL) either before or during the pandemic. Method This study is based on analyses of quantitative and qualitative data from the online Babies Born Better survey. Responses recorded by women giving birth in the UK and the NL between June and December 2020 have been used, encompassing women who gave birth between 2017 and 2020. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and chi-squared tests were performed to compare women who gave birth pre- versus during pandemic and separately by country. Qualitative data was analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Findings Respondents in both the UK and the NL who gave birth during the pandemic were as likely, or, if they had a self-reported above average standard of life, more likely to rate their labour and birth experience positively when compared to women who gave birth pre-pandemic. This was despite the fact that those labouring in the pandemic reported a lack of support and limits placed on freedom of choice. Two potential explanatory themes were identified in the qualitative data: respondents had lower expectations of care during the pandemic, and they appreciated the efforts of staff to give individualised care, despite the rules. Conclusion Our study implies that many women labouring during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced restrictions, but their experience was mitigated by staff actions. However, personalised care should not be maintained by the good will of care providers, but should be a priority in maternity care policy to benefit all service users equitably.

Background: The national health care response to coronavirus (COVID-19) has varied between countries. The United Kingdom (UK) and the Netherlands (NL) have comparable maternity and neonatal care systems, and experienced similar numbers of COVID-19 infections, but had different organisational responses to the pandemic. Understanding why and how similarities and differences occurred in these two contexts could inform optimal care in normal circumstances, and during future crises. Aim: To compare the UK and Dutch COVID-19 maternity and neonatal care responses in three key domains: choice of birthplace, companionship, and families in vulnerable situations. Method: A multi-method study, including documentary analysis of national organisation policy and guidance on COVID-19, and interviews with national and regional stakeholders. Findings: Both countries had an infection control focus, with less emphasis on the impact of restrictions. Differences included care providers’ fear of contracting COVID-19; the extent to which personalised care was embedded in the care system before the pandemic; and how far multidisciplinary collaboration and service-user involvement were prioritised. Conclusion: We recommend that countries should 1) make a systematic plan for crisis decision-making before a serious event occurs, and that this must include authentic service-user involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, and protection of staff wellbeing 2) integrate women’s and families’ values into the maternity and neonatal care system, ensuring equitable inclusion of the most vulnerable and 3) strengthen community provision to ensure system wide resilience to future shocks from pandemics, or other unexpected large-scale events.

Objectives To explore the impact of COVID-19 on companionship for women using maternity services in England, as part of the Achieving Safe and Personalised maternity care In Response to Epidemics (ASPIRE COVID-19 UK) study. Setting Maternity care provision in England. Participants Interviews were held with 26 national governmental, professional, and service-user organisation leads including representatives from the Royal College of Midwives, NHS England, Birthrights and AIMS (July-Dec). Other data included public-facing outputs logged from 25 maternity Trusts (Sept/Oct) and data extracted from 78 documents from 8 key governmental, professional and service-user organisations that informed national maternity care guidance and policy (Feb-Dec). Results Six themes emerged: ‘Postcode lottery of care’ highlights variations in companionship practices, ‘Confusion and stress around ‘rules’’ relates to a lack of and variable information concerning companionship, ‘Unintended consequences’ concerns the negative impacts of restricted companionship on service-users and staff, ‘Need for flexibility’ highlights concerns about applying companionship 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 women’s human rights. Conclusions Policies concerning companionship 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. This was associated with psychological harms for some women and staff. There is an urgent need to determine how to balance risks and benefits sensitively and flexibly and to optimise outcomes during the current and future crisis situations. Strengths an

Aim Refugees often face barriers to accessing health services, especially after resettlement. The aim of this study is to identify key elements of effective public health interventions that address barriers to health services for refugees. Methods Key online databases were searched to identify studies published between 2010 and 2019. Six studies met the inclusion criteria: two qualitative, one quantitative and three mixed-methods studies. An adapted narrative synthesis framework was used which included thematic analysis for systematic reviews. Results Five themes were identified: peer support, translation services, accessible intervention, health education and a multidisciplinary approach. Conclusion These key elements identified from this review could be incorporated into public health interventions to support refugees’ access to health services. They could be useful for services targeting refugees generally, but also supporting services targeting refugee resettlement programmes such as the Syrian resettled refugees in the UK. Future research is needed to evaluate the impact of public health interventions where these elements have been integrated into the intervention.

Background Asylum-seeking and refugee women currently residing in Europe face unique challenges in the perinatal period. A range of social support interventions have been developed to address these challenges. However, little is known about which women value and why. Methods A critical interpretive synthesis was undertaken using peer reviewed and grey literature to explore the nature, context and impact of these perinatal social support interventions on the wellbeing of asylum-seeking and refugee women. Results Four types of interventions were identified which had varying impacts on women’s experiences. The impacts of the interventions were synthesised into five themes: Alleviation of being alone, Safety and trust, Practical knowledge and learning, Being cared for and emotional support, and Increased confidence in and beyond the intervention. Discussion The interventions which were most valued by women were those using a community-based befriending/peer support approach as these provided the most holistic approach to addressing women’s needs.

While shared personal experiences are a valued prerequisite of the peer supporter-service-user relationship, they have the potential to create harm. There are challenges in peer supporters being emotionally ready to hear the experiences of others, and how much personal information peers should disclose. As part of an international study that aimed to explore how peer supporters who worked in a neonatal context (providing support to parents whose infant(s) has received neonatal care) were trained and supported, new insights emerged into how peers' personal stories were used and modified to instil boundaries in peer support services. In this paper, we report on a secondary analysis of the data to describe how peer supporters' stories were valued, used, assessed and moderated in neonatal peer support services; to safeguard and promote positive outcomes for peers and parents. Following University ethics approval, a mixed-methods study comprising online surveys and follow-up interviews was undertaken. Surveys were distributed through existing contacts and via social media. Thirty-one managers/coordinators/trainers and 77 peer supporters completed the survey from 48 peer support services in 16 different countries, and 26 interviews were held with 27 survey respondents. Three themes describe variations in the types of stories that were preferred and when peers were perceived to be 'ready' to share them; the different means by which sharing personal accounts was encouraged and used to assess peer readiness; and the methods used to instil (and assess) boundaries in the stories the peers shared. In neonatal-related peer support provision, the expected use of peer supporters' stories resonates with the 'use of self' canon in social work practice. Peer supporters were expected to modify personal stories to ensure that service-user (parents) needs were primary, the information was beneficial, and harm was minimised. Further work to build resilience and emotional intelligence in

While shared personal experiences are a valued prerequisite of the peer supporter–service‐user relationship, they have the potential to create harm. There are challenges in peer supporters being emotionally ready to hear the experiences of others, and how much personal information peers should disclose. As part of an international study that aimed to explore how peer supporters who worked in a neonatal context (providing support to parents whose infant(s) has received neonatal care) were trained and supported, new insights emerged into how peers’ personal stories were used and modified to instil boundaries in peer support services. In this paper, we report on a secondary analysis of the data to describe how peer supporters’ stories were valued, used, assessed and moderated in neonatal peer support services; to safeguard and promote positive outcomes for peers and parents. Following University ethics approval, a mixed‐methods study comprising online surveys and follow‐up interviews was undertaken. Surveys were distributed through existing contacts and via social media. Thirty‐one managers/coordinators/trainers and 77 peer supporters completed the survey from 48 peer support services in 16 different countries, and 26 interviews were held with 27 survey respondents. Three themes describe variations in the types of stories that were preferred and when peers were perceived to be ‘ready’ to share them; the different means by which sharing personal accounts was encouraged and used to assess peer readiness; and the methods used to instil (and assess) boundaries in the stories the peers shared. In neonatal‐related peer support provision, the expected use of peer supporters’ stories resonates with the ‘use of self’ canon in social work practice. Peer supporters were expected to modify personal stories to ensure that service‐user (parents) needs were primary, the information was beneficial, and harm was minimised. Further work to build resilience and emotional intelligence in

While shared personal experiences are a valued prerequisite of the peer supporter-service-user relationship, they have the potential to create harm. There are challenges in peer supporters being emotionally ready to hear the experiences of others, and how much personal information peers should disclose. As part of an international study that aimed to explore how peer supporters who worked in a neonatal context (providing support to parents whose infant(s) has received neonatal care) were trained and supported, new insights emerged into how peers' personal stories were used and modified to instil boundaries in peer support services. In this paper, we report on a secondary analysis of the data to describe how peer supporters' stories were valued, used, assessed and moderated in neonatal peer support services; to safeguard and promote positive outcomes for peers and parents. Following University ethics approval, a mixed-methods study comprising online surveys and follow-up interviews was undertaken. Surveys were distributed through existing contacts and via social media. Thirty-one managers/coordinators/trainers and 77 peer supporters completed the survey from 48 peer support services in 16 different countries, and 26 interviews were held with 27 survey respondents. Three themes describe variations in the types of stories that were preferred and when peers were perceived to be 'ready' to share them; the different means by which sharing personal accounts was encouraged and used to assess peer readiness; and the methods used to instil (and assess) boundaries in the stories the peers shared. In neonatal-related peer support provision, the expected use of peer supporters' stories resonates with the 'use of self' canon in social work practice. Peer supporters were expected to modify personal stories to ensure that service-user (parents) needs were primary, the information was beneficial, and harm was minimised. Further work to build resilience and emotional intelligence in

Background The United States (US) spends more on health care than any other high‐resource country. Despite this, their maternal and newborn outcomes are worse than all other countries with similar levels of economic development. Our purpose was to describe maternal and newborn outcomes and organization of care in four high‐resource countries (Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom) with consistently better outcomes and lower health care costs, and to identify opportunities for emulation and improvement in the United States. Method We examined resources that described health care organization and financing, provider types, birth settings, national, clinical guidelines, health care policies, surveillance data, and information for consumers. We conducted interviews with country stakeholders representing the disciplines of obstetrics, midwifery, pediatrics, neonatology, epidemiology, sociology, political science, public health, and health services. The results of the analysis were compared and contrasted with the US maternity system. Results The four countries had lower rates of maternal mortality, low birthweight, and newborn and infant death than the United States. Five commonalities were identified as follows: (1) affordable/ accessible health care, (2) a maternity workforce that emphasized midwifery care and interprofessional collaboration, (3) respectful care and maternal autonomy, (4) evidence‐based guidelines on place of birth, and (5) national data collections systems. Conclusions The findings reveal marked differences in the other countries compared to the United States. It is critical to consider the evidence for improved maternal and newborn outcomes with different models of care and to examine US cultural and structural failures that are leading to unacceptable and substandard maternal and infant outcomes.

In 2014, the EU funded a four-year European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action to address the topic of childbirth. The COST Birth Action was a cross-European network, that brought together over 120 scientists, practitioners, activists and policy makers from 34 countries to work on intrapartum care. The central aim was to advance the state of research and practice in a specific area of great clinical and social importance, intrapartum care. The Action used inter and trans-disciplinary approaches to address birth from multiple perspectives and drew on complexity theory and the concept of salutogenesis (wellbeing). This special collection presents six papers produced from the Action and gives a sense of the range and depth of the work conducted. The Collection illustrates the knowledge that can be generated when a diverse group of people come together with a similar goals and perspectives.