How Expanding the Role of Midwives in U.S. Health Care Could Help Address the Maternal Health Crisis

Midwives are licensed health care providers who offer a wide range of essential reproductive and sexual health care services, from birth and newborn care to Pap tests and contraceptive care. Research consistently demonstrates that when midwives play a central role in the provision of maternal care, patients are more satisfied, clinical outcomes for parents and infants improve, and costs decrease. Use of midwives is also associated with fewer cesarean sections, lower preterm birth rates, lower episiotomy rates, higher breastfeeding rates, and a greater sense of respect and autonomy for the patient.Given the many benefits of midwives, and the profound maternal care inequities affecting Black and Indigenous families in the U.S., it's important to understand how they could be better integrated into the U.S. health care system. This includes the intentional integration of midwifery across the complex health care ecosystem in order to ensure midwifery care is accessible, affordable, and equitable to all childbearing people

"I fought my entire way": Experiences of declining maternity care services in British Columbia.

BackgroundThe 2016 WHO Standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care in health facilities established patient experience of care as a core indicator of quality. Global health experts have described loss of autonomy and disrespect as mistreatment. Risk of disrespect and abuse is higher when patient and care provider opinions differ, but little is known about service users experiences when declining aspects of their maternity care.MethodsTo address this gap, we present a qualitative content analysis of 1540 written accounts from 892 service users declining or refusing care options throughout childbearing with a large, geographically representative sample (2900) of childbearing women in British Columbia who participated in an online survey with open-ended questions eliciting care experiences.FindingsFour themes are presented: 1) Contentious interactions: "I fought my entire way", describing interactions as fraught with tension and recounting stories of "fighting" for the right to refuse a procedure/intervention; 2) Knowledge as control or as power: "like I was a dim girl", both for providers as keepers of medical knowledge and for clients when they felt knowledgeable about procedures/interventions; 3) Morbid threats: "do you want your baby to die?", coercion or extreme pressure from providers when clients declined interventions; 4) Compliance as valued: "to be a 'good client'", recounting compliance or obedience to medical staff recommendations as valuable social capital but suppressing desire to ask questions or decline care.ConclusionWe conclude that in situations where a pregnant person declines recommended treatment, or requests treatment that a care provider does not support, tension and strife may ensue. These situations deprioritize and decenter a woman's autonomy and preferences, leading care providers and the culture of care away from the principles of respect and person-centred care

Perinatal Mood and Anxiety Disorder and Reproductive Justice: Examining Unmet Needs for Mental Health and Social Services in a National Cohort

Introduction: Perinatal Mood and Anxiety Disorders (PMADs) are the most common complications during the perinatal period. There is limited understanding of the gaps between need and provision of comprehensive health services for childbearing people, especially among racialized populations. Methods: The Giving Voice to Mothers Study (GVtM; n=2700), led by a multistakeholder, Steering Council, captured experiences of engaging with perinatal services across the United States, including access, respectful care, and health systems' responsiveness. A patient-designed survey included variables to assess relationships between race, care provider type (midwife or doctor), and needs for psychosocial health services. We calculated summary statistics and tested for significant differences across racialized groups, subsequently reporting odds ratios (ORs) for each group. Results: Among all respondents, 11% (n=274) reported unmet needs for social and mental health services. Indigenous women were three times as likely to have unmet needs for treatment for depression (OR [95% confidence interval, CI]: 3.1 [1.5?6.5]) or mental health counseling (OR [95% CI]: 2.8 [1.5?5.4]), followed by Black women (OR [95% CI]: 1.8 [1.2?2.8] and 2.4 [1.7?3.4]). Odds of postpartum screening for PMAD were significantly lower for Latina women (OR [95% CI]=0.6 [0.4?0.8]). Those with midwife providers were significantly more likely to report screening for anxiety or depression (OR [95% CI]=1.81 [1.45?2.23]) than those with physician providers. Discussion: We found significant unmet need for mental health screening and treatment in the United States. Our results confirm racial disparities in referrals to social services and highlight differences across provider types. We discuss barriers to the integration of assessments and interventions for PMAD into routine perinatal services. Implications: We propose incentivizing reimbursement schema for screening and treatment programs; for community-based organizations that provide mental health and social services; and for culture-centered midwife-led perinatal and birth centers. Addressing these gaps is essential to reproductive justice

Examining respect, autonomy, and mistreatment in childbirth in the US: do provider type and place of birth matter?

Abstract Background Analyses of factors that determine quality of perinatal care consistently rely on clinical markers, while failing to assess experiential outcomes. Understanding how model of care and birth setting influence experiences of respect, autonomy, and decision making, is essential for comprehensive assessment of quality. Methods We examined responses (n = 1771) to an online cross-sectional national survey capturing experiences of perinatal care in the United States. We used validated patient-oriented measures and scales to assess four domains of experience: (1) decision-making, (2) respect, (3) mistreatment, and (4) time spent during visits. We categorized the provider type and birth setting into three groups: midwife at community birth, midwife at hospital-birth, and physician at hospital-birth. For each group, we used multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics, to estimate the odds of experiential outcomes in all the four domains. Results Compared to those cared for by physicians in hospitals, individuals cared for by midwives in community settings had more than five times the odds of experiencing higher autonomy (aOR: 5.22, 95% CI: 3.65–7.45), higher respect (aOR: 5.39, 95% CI: 3.72–7.82) and lower odds of mistreatment (aOR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10–0.26). We found significant differences across birth settings: participants cared for by midwives in the community settings had significantly better experiential outcomes than those in the hospital settings: high- autonomy (aOR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.66–4.27), respect (aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 2.81–6.14), mistreatment (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11–0.34), time spent (aOR: 8.06, 95% CI: 4.26–15.28). Conclusion Participants reported better experiential outcomes when cared for by midwives than by physicians. And for those receiving midwifery care, the quality of experiential outcomes was significantly higher in community settings than in hospital settings. Care settings matter and structures of hospital-based care may impair implementation of the person-centered midwifery care model

Reflecting on Equity in Perinatal Care During a Pandemic

Growing discourse around maternity care during the pandemic offers an opportunity to reflect on how this crisis has amplified inequities in health care. We argue that policies upholding the rights of birthing people, and policies decreasing the risk of COVID-19 transmission are not mutually exclusive. The explicit lack of standardization of evidence-based maternity care, whether expressed in clinical protocols or institutional policy, has disproportionately impacted marginalized communities. If these factors remain unexamined, then it would seem that equity is not the priority, but retaining power and control is. We advocate for a comprehensive understanding of how this pandemic has revealed our deepest failures.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCFamily Practice, Department ofMidwifery, Division ofReviewedFacultyResearcherPostdoctora

Reimagining Perinatal Mental Health: An Expansive Vision For Structural Change

Diagnoses of depression, anxiety, or other mental illness capture just one aspect of the psychosocial elements of the perinatal period. Perinatal loss; trauma; unstable, unsafe, or inhumane work environments; structural racism and gendered oppression in health care and society; and the lack of a social safety net threaten the overall well-being of birthing people, their families, and communities. Developing relevant policies for perinatal mental health thus requires attending to the intersecting effects of racism, poverty, lack of child care, inadequate postpartum support, and other structural violence on health. To fully understand and address this issue, we use a human rights framework to articulate how and why policy makers must take progressive action toward this goal. This commentary, written by an interdisciplinary and intergenerational team, employs personal and professional expertise to disrupt underlying assumptions about psychosocial aspects of the perinatal experience and reimagines a new way forward to facilitate well-being in the perinatal period

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health