How do social discourses of risk impact on women’s choices for vaginal breech birth? A qualitative study of women’s experiences

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. In this article, we aim to explore the impact of social discourses of risk around childbirth on the decisions made for birth by women who planned to have a breech baby late in pregnancy. This article uses data from a qualitative descriptive study in New South Wales, Australia in 2013. In the study, we talked to 22 women about their decision-making process for planned a vaginal breech birth and the impact of social discourses of risk on this decision. In total, 12 of these women had a vaginal birth and the other 10 had a Caesarean section. In this article, we note that the mothers talked about their option for birth in a social setting in which the dominant discourse focused on the riskiness of breech birth and the vulnerability of female bodies that required medical surveillance, supervision and intervention to ensure a safe birth. Thus, for these mothers their pregnancy was seen through the societal lens of risk and medicalisation, with surgical intervention through a Caesarean section seen by society as the optimum choice. Women could resist this dominant discourse but such resistance required both justification and action, for example, the women who wanted a vaginal birth often had to resist the pressure from their families to have a Caesarean section. We identified four related strands in women’s talk about resisting the dominate discourse: acknowledgment that they would be considered irrational for wanting a vaginal birth; having confidence in and believing that their body could give birth vaginally; convincing significant others that a vaginal birth was possible and desirable and looking for sources of support, for example, from new online social networks

Supporting Women Planning a Vaginal Breech Birth: An International Survey

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of women who planned a vaginal breech birth. Method: An online survey was developed consisting of questions regarding women's experiences surrounding planned vaginal breech birth. The survey was distributed between April 2014 and January 2015 to closed membership Facebook groups that had a consumer focus on vaginal breech birth. Results: In total, 204 unique responses to the survey were obtained from women who had sought the option of a vaginal breech birth in a previous pregnancy. Most women (80.8%) stated that they were happy with the birth choices they made, and a significant proportion (89.4%) would attempt a vaginal breech birth in subsequent pregnancies. Less than half of women were formally referred to a clinician skilled in vaginal breech birth when their baby was diagnosed breech (41.8%), while the remainder sourced a clinician themselves. Half of the women felt supported by their care provider (56.7%) and less than half (42.3%) felt supported by family and friends. Conclusion: The women who responded to this international survey sought the option of a vaginal breech birth, were subsequently happy with this decision, and would attempt a vaginal breech birth in their next pregnancy. Access to vaginal breech birth is important for some women; however, this choice may be challenging to achieve. Consistent information and support from clinicians is important to assist decision-making

Women's experiences of planning a vaginal breech birth in Australia

© Homer et al. Background: In many countries, planned vaginal breech birth (VBB) is a rare event. After the Term Breech Trial in 2000, VBB reduced and caesarean section for breech presentation increased. Despite this, women still request VBB. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences and decision-making processes of women who had sought a VBB. Methods: A qualitative study using descriptive exploratory design was undertaken. Twenty-two (n=22) women who planned a VBB, regardless of eventual mode of birth were recruited. The women had given birth at one of two maternity hospitals in Australia that supported VBB. In-depth, semi-structured interviews using an interview guide were conducted. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results: Twenty two women were interviewed; three quarters were primiparous (n=16; 73%). Nine (41%) were already attending a hospital that supported VBB with the remaining women moving hospitals. All women actively sought a vaginal breech birth because the baby remained breech after an external cephalic version - 12 had a vaginal birth (55%) and 10 (45%) a caesarean section after labour commenced. There were four main themes: Reacting to a loss of choice and control, Wanting information that was trustworthy, Fighting the system and seeking support for VBB and The importance of 'having a go' at VBB. Conclusions: Women seeking a VBB value clear, consistent and relevant information in deciding about mode of birth. Women desire autonomy to choose vaginal breech birth and to be supported in their choice with high quality care

‘Stress, anger, fear and injustice’: An international qualitative survey of women's experiences planning a vaginal breech birth

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd Objective the outcomes of the Term Breech Trial had a profound impact on women's options for breech birth, with caesarean section now seen as the default method for managing breech birth by many clinicians. Despite this, the demand for planned vaginal breech birth from women does exist. This study aimed to examine the experiences of women who sought a vaginal breech birth to increase understanding as to how to care for women seeking this birth option. Design an electronic survey was distributed to women online via social media. The survey consisted of qualitative and quantitative questions, with the qualitative data being the focus of this paper. Open ended questions sought information on the ways in which woman sourced a clinician skilled in vaginal breech birth and the level of support and quality of information provided from clinicians regarding vaginal breech birth. Thematic analysis was used to analyse and code the qualitative data into major themes. Findings in total, 204 women from over seven countries responded to the survey. Written responses to the open ended questions were categorised into seven themes: Seeking the chance to try for a VBB; Encountering coercion and fear; Putting the birth before the baby?; Dealing with emotional wounds; Searching for information and support; Traveling across boundaries; Overcoming obstacles in the system. Key conclusions for women seeking vaginal breech birth, limited system and clinical support can impede access to balanced information and options for care. Recognition of existing evidence on the safety of vaginal breech birth, as well as the presence of clinical guidelines that support it, may assist in promoting vaginal breech birth as a legitimate option that should be available to women

This baby is not for turning: Women's experiences of attempted external cephalic version

© 2016 The Author(s). Background: Existing studies regarding women's experiences surrounding an External Cephalic Version (ECV) report on women who have a persistent breech post ECV and give birth by caesarean section, or on women who had successful ECVs and plan for a vaginal birth. There is a paucity of understanding about the experience of women who attempt an ECV then plan a vaginal breech birth when their baby remains breech. The aim of this study was to examine women's experience of an ECV which resulted in a persistent breech presentation. Methods: A qualitative descriptive exploratory design was undertaken. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed thematically. Results: Twenty two (n = 22) women who attempted an ECV and subsequently planned a vaginal breech birth participated. Twelve women had a vaginal breech birth (55 %) and 10 (45 %) gave birth by caesarean section. In relation to the ECV, there were five main themes identified: 'seeking an alternative', 'needing information', 'recounting the ECV experience', 'reacting to the unsuccessful ECV' and, 'reflecting on the value of an ECV'. Conclusions: ECV should form part of a range of options provided to women, rather than a default procedure for management of the term breech. For motivated women who fit the safe criteria for vaginal breech birth, not being subjected to a painful experience (ECV) may be optimal. Women should be supported to access services that support vaginal breech birth if this is their choice, and continuity of care should be standard practice

Care during the decision-making phase for women who want a vaginal breech birth: Experiences from the field

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. Background: few women are given the option of a vaginal breech birth in Australia, unless the clinicians feel confident and have the skills to facilitate this mode of birth. Few studies describe how clinicians provide care during the decision-making phase for women who choose a vaginal breech birth. The aim of this study was to explore how experienced clinicians facilitated decisions about external cephalic version and mode of birth for women who have a breech presentation. Methods: a descriptive exploratory design was undertaken with nine experienced clinicians (obstetricians and midwives) from two tertiary hospitals in Australia. Data were collected through face to face interviews and analysed thematically. Findings: five obstetricians and four midwives participated in this study. All were experienced in caring for women having a vaginal breech birth and were currently involved in providing such a service. The themes that arose from the data were: Pitching the discussion, Discussing safety and risk, Being calm and Providing continuity of care. Conclusions: caring for women who seek a vaginal breech birth includes careful selection of appropriate women, full discussions outlining the risks involved, and undertaking care with a calm manner, ensuring continuity of care. Health services considering establishing a vaginal breech service should consider that these elements are included in the establishment and implementation processes

Caseload midwifery compared to standard or private obstetric care for first time mothers in a public teaching hospital in Australia: A cross sectional study of cost and birth outcomes

Background: In many countries midwives act as the main providers of care for women throughout pregnancy, labour and birth. In our large public teaching hospital in Australia we restructured the way midwifery care is offered and introduced caseload midwifery for one third of women booked at the hospital. We then compared the costs and birth outcomes associated with caseload midwifery compared to the two existing models of care, standard hospital care and private obstetric care.Methods: We undertook a cross sectional study examining the risk profile, birth outcomes and cost of care for women booked into one of the three available models of care in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia between July 1st 2009 December 31st 2010. To control for differences in population or case mix we described the outcomes for a cohort of low risk first time mothers known as the 'standard primipara'.Results: Amongst the 1,379 women defined as 'standard primipara' there were significant differences in birth outcome. These first time 'low risk' mothers who received caseload care were more likely to have a spontaneous onset of labour and an unassisted vaginal birth 58.5% in MGP compared to 48.2% for Standard hospital care and 30.8% with Private obstetric care (p < 0.001). They were also significantly less likely to have an elective caesarean section 1.6% with MGP versus 5.3% with Standard care and 17.2% with private obstetric care (p < 0.001). From the public hospital perspective, over one financial year the average cost of care for the standard primipara in MGP was $3903.78 per woman. This was$1375.45 less per woman than those receiving Private obstetric care and $1590.91 less than Standard hospital care per woman (p < 0.001). Similar differences in cost were found in favour of MGP for all women in the study who received caseload care.Conclusions: Cost reduction appears to be achieved through reorganising the way care is delivered in the public hospital system with the introduction of Midwifery Group Practice or caseload care. The study also highlights the unexplained clinical variation that exists between the three models of care in Australia. © 2014 Tracy et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Harnessing technology to enable all women mobility in labour and birth: feasibility of implementing beltless non-invasive fetal ECG applying the NASSS framework.

Background A new wireless and beltless monitoring device utilising fetal and maternal electrocardiography (ECG) and uterine electromyography, known as ‘non-invasive fetal ECG’ (NIFECG) was registered for clinical use in Australia in 2018. The safety and reliability of NIFECG has been demonstrated in controlled settings for short periods during labour. As far as we are aware, at the time our study commenced, this was globally the first trial of such a device in an authentic clinical setting for the entire duration of a woman’s labour. Methods This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using NIFECG fetal monitoring for women undergoing continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour and birth. Women were eligible to participate in the study if they were at 36 weeks gestation or greater with a singleton pregnancy, planning to give birth vaginally and with obstetric indications as per local protocol (NSW Health Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring Guideline GL2018_025. 2018) for continuous intrapartum fetal monitoring. Written informed consent was received from participating women in antenatal clinic prior to the onset of labour. This single site clinical feasibility study took place between January and July 2020 at the Royal Hospital for Women in Sydney, Australia. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to inform the analysis of results using the NASSS (Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale up, Spread and Sustainability) framework, a validated tool for analysing the implementation of new health technologies into clinical settings. Results Women responded positively about the comfort and freedom of movement afforded by the NIFECG. Midwives reported that when no loss of contact occurred, the device enabled them to focus less on the technology and more on supporting women’s physical and emotional needs during labour. Midwives and obstetricians noticed the benefits for women but expressed a need for greater certainty about the reliability of the signal. Conclusion The NIFECG device enables freedom of movement and positioning for labouring women and was well received by women and the majority of clinicians. Whilst measurement of the uterine activity was reliable, there was uncertainty for clinicians in relation to loss of contact of the fetal heart rate. If this can be ameliorated the device shows potential to be used as routinely as cardiotocography (CTG) for fetal monitoring. This is the first time the NASSS framework has been used to synthesise the implementation needs of a health technology in the care of women during labour and birth. Our findings contribute new knowledge about the determinants for implementation of a complex technology in a maternity care setting. Trial registration The Universal Trial Number is reU1111-1228-9845 and the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registration Number is 12619000293167p. Trial registration occurred on the 20 February, 2019. The trial protocol may be viewed at http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=37702

Study protocol for a comparative effectiveness trial of two models of perinatal integrated psychosocial assessment: The PIPA project

Background: Studies examining psychosocial and depression assessment programs in maternity settings have not adequately considered the context in which psychosocial assessment occurs or how broader components of integrated care, including clinician decision-making aids, may optimise program delivery and its cost-effectiveness. There is also limited evidence relating to the diagnostic accuracy of symptom-based screening measures used in this context. The Perinatal Integrated Psychosocial Assessment (PIPA) Project was developed to address these knowledge gaps. The primary aims of the PIPA Project are to examine the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of two alternative models of integrated psychosocial care during pregnancy: \u27care as usual\u27 (the SAFE START model) and an alternative model (the PIPA model). The acceptability and perceived benefit of each model of care from the perspective of both pregnant women and their healthcare providers will also be assessed. Our secondary aim is to examine the psychometric properties of a number of symptom-based screening tools for depression and anxiety when used in pregnancy. Methods: This is a comparative-effectiveness study comparing \u27care as usual\u27 to an alternative model sequentially over two 12-month periods. Data will be collected from women at Time 1 (initial antenatal psychosocial assessment), Time 2 (2-weeks after Time 1) and from clinicians at Time 3 for each condition. Primary aims will be evaluated using a between-groups design, and the secondary aim using a within group design. Discussion: The PIPA Project will provide evidence relating to the clinical- and cost- effectiveness of psychosocial assessment integrated with electronic clinician decision making prompts, and referral options that are tailored to the woman\u27s psychosocial risk, in the maternity care setting. It will also address research recommendations from the Australian (2011) and NICE (2015) Clinical Practice Guidelines

Moxibustion for cephalic version: a feasibility randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Moxibustion (a type of Chinese medicine which involves burning a herb close to the skin) has been used to correct a breech presentation. Evidence of effectiveness and safety from systematic reviews is encouraging although significant heterogeneity has been found among trials. We assessed the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of moxibustion plus usual care compared with usual care to promote cephalic version in women with a breech presentation, and examined the views of women and health care providers towards implementing a trial within an Australian context.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was undertaken at a public hospital in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. Women at 34-36.5 weeks of gestation with a singleton breech presentation (confirmed by ultrasound), were randomised to moxibustion plus usual care or usual care alone. The intervention was administered over 10 days. Clinical outcomes included cephalic presentation at birth, the need for ECV, mode of birth; perinatal morbidity and mortality, and maternal complications. Feasibility outcomes included: recruitment rate, acceptability, compliance and a sample size for a future study. Interviews were conducted with 19 midwives and obstetricians to examine the acceptability of moxibustion, and views on the trial.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty women were randomised to the trial. Fifty one percent of women approached accepted randomisation to the trial. A trend towards an increase in cephalic version at delivery (RR 5.0; 95% CI 0.7-35.5) was found for women receiving moxibustion compared with usual care. There was also a trend towards greater success with version following ECV. Two babies were admitted to the neonatal unit from the moxibustion group. Compliance with the moxibustion protocol was acceptable with no reported side effects. Clinicians expressed the need for research to establish the safety and efficacy of moxibustion, and support for the intervention was given to increase women's choices, and explore opportunities to normalise birth. The sample size for a future trial is estimated to be 381 women.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings should be interpreted with caution as the study was underpowered to detect statistical differences between groups. Acceptance by women and health professionals towards moxibustion suggest further research is warranted.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12609000985280.aspx">ACTRN12609000985280</a></p