Midwife-led debriefing after operative birth: four to six year follow-up of a randomised trial [ISRCTN24648614]

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence that single-session debriefing is effective in reducing adverse mental health outcomes after trauma. Few trials have included long-term follow-up, but two also suggest possible negative effects of debriefing. We aimed to assess longer-term maternal health outcomes in a trial of midwife-led debriefing following an operative birth, given that findings at six months could not rule out a possible adverse effect of debriefing. METHODS: Four to six years after participating in a midwife-led trial of debriefing following an operative birth, 1039/1041 women were mailed a questionnaire containing the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and the SF-36 health status measure. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 534 women (51.4%). Responders from the two trial groups remained comparable 4–6 years postpartum. No significant differences on maternal health outcomes were found between the trial groups. CONCLUSION: In the longer term, maternal health status was neither positively nor adversely affected by the experience of debriefing, despite a hint of adverse effects at six months postpartum. Short debriefing interventions have not proven effective in improving mental health outcomes for women following childbirth

Postnatal quality of life in women after normal vaginal delivery and caesarean section

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Caesarean section might increase the incidence of surgical interventions and problems resulting from hospitalization and thus affecting quality of life in women after delivery. This study aimed to compare quality of life in women after normal delivery and caesarean section.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a prospective study. A sample of women with normal delivery and caesarean section from 5 health care centers in Isfahan, Iran were entered into the study. Quality of life was measured using the SF-36 at two points in time (time 1: 6 to 8 weeks after delivery; time 2: 12 to 14 weeks after delivery). Data were analyzed to compare quality of life in the two study groups.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In all 100 women were interviewed (50 with normal delivery and 50 with caesarean section). Postnatal quality of life in both groups was improved from time1 to time 2. However, comparing the mean scores between the normal and caesarean delivery groups the results showed that in general the normal vaginal delivery group had a better quality of life for almost all subscales in both assessment times. The differences were significant for vitality (mean score 62.9 vs. 54.4 P = 0.03) and mental health (mean score 75.1 vs. 66.7, P = 0.03) at first assessment and for physical functioning (mean score 88.4 vs. 81.5, P = 0.03) at second evaluation. However, comparing the findings within each group the analysis showed that the normal vaginal delivery group improved more on physical health related quality of life while the caesarean section group improved more on mental health related quality of life.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although the study did not show a clear cut benefit in favor of either methods of delivery that are normal vaginal delivery or caesarean section, the findings suggest that normal vaginal delivery might lead to a better quality of life especially resulting in a superior physical health. Indeed in the absence of medical indications normal vaginal delivery might be better to be considered as the first priority in term pregnancy.</p

Evaluation of changes in postnatal care using the "Parents' Postnatal Sense of Security" instrument and an assessment of the instrument's reliability and validity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A sense of security is important for experiences of parenthood in the early postpartum period. The objectives of this study were to evaluate two models of postnatal care using a questionnaire incorporating the Parents' Postpartum Sense of Security (<it>PPSS</it>) instrument and to test the validity of the <it>PPSS </it>instrument.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Postal surveys were sent to 234 mothers who had experienced two different forms of postnatal care (study group and control group) and returned by 86.8%. These two groups of mothers were compared for total scores on the <it>PPSS </it>instrument. Demographic variables and mothers' opinions about care interventions were also compared and these variables were tested for correlations with the total <it>PPSS </it>score. A regression analysis was carried out to assess areas of midwifery care which might affect a sense of security. The internal consistency and concurrent validity of the instrument were tested for the total population.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>there were no significant differences between the groups for scores on the <it>PPSS </it>instrument. A total of three variables predicted 26% of the variability on the <it>PPSS </it>scores for the study group and five variables predicted 37% of the variability in the control group. One variable was common to both: "<it>The midwives on the postnatal ward paid attention to the mother as an individual"</it>. There were significant correlations between the total <it>PPSS </it>scores and scores for postpartum talks and visits to the breastfeeding clinic. There was also a significant correlation between the single question: "<it>I felt secure during the first postpartum week</it>" and the total <it>PPSS </it>score. Tests for internal consistency and concurrent validity were satisfactory.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The proposed new model of care neither improved nor impaired mothers' feelings of security the week following birth. Being seen as an individual by the midwife who provides postnatal care may be an important variable for mothers' sense of postnatal security. It is possible that postpartum talks may encourage the processing of childbirth experiences in a positive direction. Availability of breastfeeding support may also add to a sense of security postpartum. The <it>PPSS </it>instrument has shown acceptable reliability and validity.</p

Experiences of non-progressive and augmented labour among nulliparous women: a qualitative interview study in a Grounded Theory approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-progressive labour is the most common complication in nulliparas and is primarily treated by augmentation. Augmented labour is often terminated by instrumental delivery. Little qualitative research has addressed experiences of non-progressive and augmented deliveries. The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the experience of non-progressive and augmented labour among nulliparas and their experience of the care they received.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative study was conducted using individual interviews. Data was collected and analysed according to the Grounded Theory method. The participants were a purposive sample of ten women. The interviews were conducted 4–15 weeks after delivery.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The women had contrasting experiences during the birth process. During labour there was a conflict between the expectation of having a natural delivery and actually having a medical delivery. The women experienced a feeling of separation between mind and body. Interacting with the midwife had a major influence on feelings of losing and regaining control. Reconciliation between the contrasting feelings during labour was achieved. The core category was named Dialectical Birth Process and comprised three categories: Balancing natural and medical delivery, Interacting, Losing and regaining control.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A dialectical process was identified in these women's experiences of non-progressive labour. The process is susceptible to interaction with the midwife; especially her support to the woman's feeling of being in control. Midwives should secure that the woman's recognition of the fact that the labour is non-progressive and augmentation is required is handled with respect for the dialectical process. Augmentation of labour should be managed as close to the course of natural labour and delivery as possible.</p

Brazilian network for the surveillance of maternal potentially life threatening morbidity and maternal near-miss and a multidimensional evaluation of their long term consequences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been suggested that the study of women who survive life-threatening complications related to pregnancy (maternal near-miss cases) may represent a practical alternative to surveillance of maternal morbidity/mortality since the number of cases is higher and the woman herself is able to provide information on the difficulties she faced and the long-term repercussions of the event. These repercussions, which may include sexual dysfunction, postpartum depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, may persist for prolonged periods of time, affecting women's quality of life and resulting in adverse effects to them and their babies.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>The aims of the present study are to create a nationwide network of scientific cooperation to carry out surveillance and estimate the frequency of maternal near-miss cases, to perform a multicenter investigation into the quality of care for women with severe complications of pregnancy, and to carry out a multidimensional evaluation of these women up to six months.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This project has two components: a multicenter, cross-sectional study to be implemented in 27 referral obstetric units in different geographical regions of Brazil, and a concurrent cohort study of multidimensional analysis. Over 12 months, investigators will perform prospective surveillance to identify all maternal complications. The population of the cross-sectional component will consist of all women surviving potentially life-threatening conditions (severe maternal complications) or life-threatening conditions (the maternal near miss criteria) and maternal deaths according to the new WHO definition and criteria. Data analysis will be performed in case subgroups according to the moment of occurrence and determining cause. Frequencies of near-miss and other severe maternal morbidity and the association between organ dysfunction and maternal death will be estimated. A proportion of cases identified in the cross-sectional study will comprise the cohort of women for the multidimensional analysis. Various aspects of the lives of women surviving severe maternal complications will be evaluated 3 and 6 months after the event and compared to a group of women who suffered no severe complications in pregnancy. Previously validated questionnaires will be used in the interviews to assess reproductive function, posttraumatic stress, functional capacity, quality of life, sexual function, postpartum depression and infant development.</p

Women’s, partners’ and healthcare providers’ views and experiences of assisted vaginal birth: a systematic mixed methods review

Background When certain complications arise during the second stage of labour, assisted vaginal delivery (AVD), a vaginal birth with forceps or vacuum extractor, can effectively improve outcomes by ending prolonged labour or by ensuring rapid birth in response to maternal or fetal compromise. In recent decades, the use of AVD has decreased in many settings in favour of caesarean section (CS). This review aimed to improve understanding of experiences, barriers and facilitators for AVD use. Methods Systematic searches of eight databases using predefined search terms to identify studies reporting views and experiences of maternity service users, their partners, health care providers, policymakers, and funders in relation to AVD. Relevant studies were assessed for methodological quality. Qualitative findings were synthesised using a meta-ethnographic approach. Confidence in review findings was assessed using GRADE CERQual. Findings from quantitative studies were synthesised narratively and assessed using an adaptation of CERQual. Qualitative and quantitative review findings were triangulated using a convergence coding matrix. Results Forty-two studies (published 1985–2019) were included: six qualitative, one mixed-method and 35 quantitative. Thirty-five were from high-income countries, and seven from LMIC settings. Confidence in the findings was moderate or low. Spontaneous vaginal birth was most likely to be associated with positive short and long-term outcomes, and emergency CS least likely. Views and experiences of AVD tended to fall somewhere between these two extremes. Where indicated, AVD can be an effective, acceptable alternative to caesarean section. There was agreement or partial agreement across qualitative studies and surveys that the experience of AVD is impacted by the unexpected nature of events and, particularly in high-income settings, unmet expectations. Positive relationships, good communication, involvement in decision-making, and (believing in) the reason for intervention were important mediators of birth experience. Professional attitudes and skills (development) were simultaneously barriers and facilitators of AVD in quantitative studies. Conclusions Information, positive interaction and communication with providers and respectful care are facilitators for acceptance of AVD. Barriers include lack of training and skills for decision-making and use of instruments

Establishing a valid construct of fear of childbirth: Findings from in-depth interviews with women and midwives

Background: Fear of childbirth (FOC) can have a negative impact on a woman’s psychological wellbeing during pregnancy and her experience of birth. It has also been associated with adverse obstetric outcomes and postpartum mental health difficulties. However the FOC construct is itself poorly defined. This study aimed to systematically identify the key elements of FOC as reported by women themselves. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with pregnant women (n= 10) who reported to be fearful of childbirth and telephone interviews with consultant midwives (n= 13) who regularly work with women who are fearful of childbirth were conducted. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis for each group independently to provide two sources of information. Findings were reviewed in conjunction with a third source, a recently published meta-synthesis of existing literature of women’s own accounts of FOC. The key elements of FOC were determined via presence in two out of the three sources at least one of which was from women themselves, i.e. the reports of the women interviewed or the meta-synthesis. Results: Seven themes were identified by the women and the consultant midwives: Fear of not knowing and not being able to plan for the unpredictable, Fear of harm or stress to the baby, Fear of inability to cope with the pain, Fear of harm to self in labour and postnatally, Fear of being ‘done to’, Fear of not having a voice in decision making and Fear of being abandoned and alone. One further theme was generated by the women and supported by the reports included the meta-synthesis: Fear about my body’s ability to give birth. Two further themes were generated by the consultant midwives and were present also in the meta synthesis: Fear of internal loss of control and Terrified of birth and not knowing why. Conclusions: Ten key elements in women’s FOC were identified. These can now be used to inform development of measurement tools with verified content validity to identify women experiencing FOC, to support timely access to support during pregnancy