Pregnancy related anxiety and general anxious or depressed mood and the choice for birth setting:A secondary data-analysis of the DELIVER study

BACKGROUND: In several developed countries women with a low risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth can make choices regarding place of birth. In the Netherlands, these women receive midwife-led care and can choose between a home or hospital birth. The declining rate of midwife-led home births alongside the recent debate on safety of home births in the Netherlands, however, suggest an association of choice of birth place with psychological factors related to safety and risk perception. In this study associations of pregnancy related anxiety and general anxious or depressed mood with (changes in) planned place of birth were explored in low risk women in midwife-led care until the start of labour. METHODS: Data (n = 2854 low risk women in midwife-led care at the onset of labour) were selected from the prospective multicenter DELIVER study. Women completed the Pregnancy Related Anxiety Questionnaire-Revised (PRAQ-R) to assess pregnancy related anxiety and the EuroQol-6D (EQ-6D) for an anxious and/or depressed mood. RESULTS: A high PRAQ-R score was associated with planned hospital birth in nulliparous (aOR 1.92; 95% CI 1.32–2.81) and parous women (aOR 2.08; 95% CI 1.55–2.80). An anxious or depressed mood was associated with planned hospital birth (aOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.20–2.08) and with being undecided (aOR 1.99; 95% CI 1.23–2.99) in parous women only. The majority of women did not change their planned place of birth. Changing from an initially planned home birth to a hospital birth later in pregnancy was, however, associated with becoming anxious or depressed after 35 weeks gestation in nulliparous women (aOR 4.17; 95% CI 1.35–12.89) and with pregnancy related anxiety at 20 weeks gestation in parous women (aOR 3.91; 95% CI 1.32–11.61). CONCLUSION: Low risk women who planned hospital birth (or who were undecided) more often reported pregnancy related anxiety or an anxious or depressed mood. Women who changed from home to hospital birth during pregnancy more often reported pregnancy related anxiety or an anxious or depressed mood in late pregnancy. Anxiety should be adequately addressed in the process of informed decision-making regarding planned place of birth in low risk women

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for psychological distress in pregnancy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant psychological distress in pregnancy is common, with epidemiological research suggesting that between 15 and 25 % of pregnant women experience elevated symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression. Untreated psychological distress in pregnancy is associated with poor obstetrical outcomes, changes in maternal physiology, elevated incidence of child physical and psychological disorders, and is predictive of maternal postpartum mood disorders. Despite the wide-ranging impact of antenatal psychological distress on mothers and their children, there is a gap in our knowledge about the most effective treatments that are available for psychological distress experienced in pregnancy. Additionally, no trials have focused on potential physiological changes that may occur as a result of receiving mindfulness training in pregnancy. The proposed trial will determine the effectiveness of an 8-week modified Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) intervention delivered during pregnancy. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) design with repeated measures will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of MBCT to treat psychological distress in pregnancy. A sample of 60 consenting pregnant women aged 18 years and above will be enrolled and randomized to the experimental (MBCT) or control (treatment as usual) condition. Primary (e.g., symptoms of stress, depression, and anxiety), secondary (cortisol, blood pressure (BP), heart rate variability (HRV), and sleep) and other outcome data (e.g., psychological diagnoses) will be collected via a combination of laboratory visits and at-home assessments from both groups at baseline (T(1)), immediately following the intervention (T(2)), and at 3 months postpartum (T(3)). Descriptive statistics will be used to describe sample characteristics. Data will be analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach. Hierarchical linear models will be used to test intervention effects on primary and secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: The trial is expected to improve knowledge about evidence-based treatments for psychological distress experienced in pregnancy and to evaluate the potential impact of mindfulness-based interventions on maternal physiology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02214732, registered on 7 August 2014. Protocol Version 2.0., 5 September 2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1601-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Association Between Advanced Maternal Age and Maternal and Neonatal Morbidity: A Cross-Sectional Study on a Spanish Population

Background and objective: Over recent decades, a progressive increase in the maternal age at childbirth has been observed in developed countries, posing a health risk for both women and infants. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between advanced maternal age (AMA) and maternal and neonatal morbidity. Material and methods: A cross-sectional study of 3,315 births was conducted in the north of Spain in 2014. We compared childbirth between women aged 35 years or older, with a reference group of women aged between 24 and 27 years. AMA was categorized based on ordinal ranking into 35-38 years, 39-42 years, and >42 years to estimate a dose-response pattern (the older the age, the greater the risk). As an association measure, crude and adjusted Odds Ratios (OR) were estimated by non-conditional logistic regression and 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CI) were calculated. Results: Repeated abortions were more common among women of AMA in comparison to pregnant women aged 24-27 years (reference group): adjusted OR = 2.68; 95%CI (1.52-4.73). A higher prevalence of gestational diabetes was also observed among women of AMA, reaching statistical significance when restricted to first time mothers: adjusted OR = 8.55; 95%CI (1.12-65.43). In addition, the possibility of an instrumental delivery was multiplied by 1.6 and the possibility of a cesarean by 1.5 among women of AMA, with these results reaching statistical significance, and observing a dose-response pattern. Lastly, there were associations between preeclampsia, preterm birth (<37 weeks) and low birthweight, however without reaching statistical significance. Conclusion: Our results support the association between AMA and suffering repeated abortions. Likewise, being of AMA was associated with a greater risk of suffering from gestational diabetes, especially among primiparous women, as well as being associated with both instrumental deliveries and cesareans among both primiparous and multiparous women

Risk of caesarean section after induced labour: do hospitals make a difference

Background: There is a well-known relationship between induced labour and caesarean rates. However, it remains unknown whether this relationship reflects the impact of more complex obstetric conditions or the variability in obstetric practices. We sought to quantify the independent role of the hospital as a variable that can influence the occurrence of caesarean section after induced labour. Methods: As part of the Portuguese Generation XXI birth cohort, we evaluated 2041 consecutive women who underwent singleton pregnancies with labour induction, at five public level III obstetric units (April 2005-August 2006). The indications for induction were classified according to the guidelines of the American and the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Poisson regression models were adjusted to estimate the association between the hospital and surgical delivery after induction. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed. Results: The proportion of women who were induced without formal clinical indications varied among hospitals from 20.3% to 45.5% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of undergoing a caesarean section after induced labour remained significantly different between the hospitals, for the cases in which there was no evident indication for induction [the highest PR reaching 1.86 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82)] and also when at least one such indication was present [1.53 (95% CI, 1.12–2.10)]. This pattern was also observed among the primiparous cephalic term induced women [the highest PR reaching 2.06 (95% CI, 1.23–2.82) when there was no evident indication for induction and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.11–2.34) when at least one such indication was present]. Conclusions:Caesarean section after induced labour varied significantly across hospitals where similar outcomes were expected. The effect was more evident when the induction was not based on the unequivocal presence of commonly accepted indications