Barriers to women's access to alongside midwifery units in England

Background: Alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are managed by midwives and proximate to obstetric units (OUs), offering a home-like birth environment for women with straightforward pregnancies. They support physiological birth, with fast access to medical care if needed. AMUs have good perinatal outcomes and lower rates of interventions than OUs. In England, uptake remains lower than potential use, despite recent changes in policy to support their use. This article reports on experiences of access from a broader study that investigated AMU organisation and care. Methods: Organisational case studies in four National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, selected for variation geographically and in features of their midwifery units. Fieldwork (December 2011 to October 2012) included observations (>100 h); semi-structured interviews with staff, managers and stakeholders (n = 89) and with postnatal women and partners (n = 47), on which this paper reports. Data were analysed thematically using NVivo10 software. Results: Women, partners and families felt welcome and valued in the AMU. They were drawn to the AMUs’ environment, philosophy and approach to technology, including pain management. Access for some was hindered by inconsistent information about the existence, environment and safety of AMUs, and barriers to admission in early labour. Conclusions:Key barriers to AMUs arise through inequitable information and challenges with admission in early labour. Most women still give birth in obstetric units and despite increases in the numbers of women birthing on AMUs since 2010, addressing these barriers will be essential to future scale-up

Working for patient safety: a qualitative study of women's help-seeking during acute perinatal events.

BACKGROUND: Women and their relatives can play an important role in early detection and help seeking for acute perinatal events. Recent UK reports indicate that patient-professional partnership in 'working for safety' can be difficult to achieve in practice, sometimes with catastrophic consequences. This research explored the experiences of women and relatives who had experienced early warning signs about their condition and sought help in escalating care. METHODS: Secondary analysis of case study data which included qualitative interviews with 22 women purposively sampled on account of experiencing a step up in care and 4 of their relatives from two NHS Trusts in England during 2010. Analysis focused on the type of safety work participants engaged in, and the opportunities and challenges reported by women and family members when negotiating safety at home and in hospital. RESULTS: Women and relatives took on a dual responsibility for self-diagnosis, self-care and seeking triage, whilst trying to avoid overburdening stretched services. Being informed, however, did not necessarily enable engagement from staff and services. The women's narratives highlighted the work that they engaged in to build a case for clinical attention, the negotiations that took place with health care professionals and the strategies women and partners drew on (such as objective signs and symptoms, use of verbal insistence and repetition) to secure clinical help. For some women, the events left them with a lasting feeling that their concerns had been disregarded. Some described a sense of betrayal and loss of trust in an institution they believed had failed to care for them. CONCLUSION: The notion of 'safety partnerships' which suggests a sense of equality and reciprocity was not borne out by our data, especially with regards to the experiences of teenage women. To enable women and families to secure a rapid response in clinical emergencies, strategies need to move beyond the provision of patient information about warning signs. Effective partnerships for safety may be supported by system level change such as improved triage, continuity of care, self-referral pathways and staff training to address asymmetries of power that persist within the health system

What makes alongside midwifery-led units work? Lessons from a national research project

The findings of the Birthplace in England Research Programme showed that midwife-led units are providing the safest and most cost-effective care for low risk women in England. Since the publication of the updated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) intrapartum guidelines, there is likely to be even more interest in the development of midwife-led units to promote birth outside obstetric units (OUs) for low-risk women. Professional bodies, policy makers and trusts have focused their energies on alongside midwife-led units (AMUs), which are seen to provide the 'best of both worlds' between home and an OU. Between 2012 and 2013, we carried out a study of the organisation of four AMUs in England and the experiences of midwives and women who worked and birthed there. Learning from their experiences, this article presents five key factors which help make AMUs work

Mental health and wellbeing during the transition to fatherhood: A systematic review of first time fathers’ experiences

COPYRIGHT 2018 THE AUTHORS PUBLISHED BY WOLTERS KLUWER HEALTH, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE JOANNA BRIGGS INSTITUTE. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to identify and synthesize the best available evidence on first time fathers’ experiences and needs in relation to their mental health and wellbeing during their transition to fatherhood. Introduction: Men’s mental health and wellbeing during their transition to fatherhood is an important public health issue that is currently under-researched from a qualitative perspective and poorly understood. Inclusion criteria: Resident first time fathers (biological and non-biological) of healthy babies born with no identified terminal or long-term conditions were included. The phenomena of interest were their experiences and needs in relation to mental health and wellbeing during their transition to fatherhood, from commencement of pregnancy until one year after birth. Studies based on qualitative data, including, but not limited to, designs within phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography and action research were included. Methods: A three-step search strategy was used. The search strategy explored published and unpublished qualitative studies from 1960 to September 2017. All included studies were assessed by two independent reviewers and any disagreements were resolved by consensus or with a third reviewer. The recommended Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach to critical appraisal, study selection, data extraction and data synthesis was used. Results: Twenty-two studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review, which were then assessed to be of moderate to high quality (scores 5-10) based on the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. The studies were published between 1990 and 2017, and all used qualitative methodologies to accomplish the overall aim of investigating the experiences of expectant or new fathers. Nine studies were from the UK, three from Sweden, three from Australia, two from Canada, two from the USA, one from Japan, one from Taiwan and one from Singapore. The total number of first time fathers included in the studies was 351. One hundred and forty-four findings were extracted from the included studies. Of these, 142 supported findings were aggregated into 23 categories and seven synthesized findings: 1) New fatherhood identity, 2) Competing challenges of new fatherhood, 3) Negative feelings and fears, 4) Stress and coping, 5) Lack of support, 6) What new fathers want, and 7) Positive aspects of fatherhood. Conclusions: Based on the synthesized findings, three main factors that affect first time fathers’ mental health and wellbeing during their transition to fatherhood were identified: the formation of the fatherhood identity, competing challenges of the new fatherhood role and negative feelings and fears relating to it. The role restrictions and changes in lifestyle often resulted in feelings of stress, for which fathers used denial or escape activities, such as smoking, working longer hours or listening to music, as coping techniques. Fathers wanted more guidance and support around the preparation for fatherhood, and partner relationship changes. Barriers to accessing support included lack of tailored information resources and acknowledgment from health professionals. Better preparation for fatherhood, and support for couple relationships during the transition to parenthood could facilitate better experiences for new fathers, and contribute to better adjustments and mental wellbeing in new fathers

Distribution of Soybean Cyst Nematode in Nebraska

A survey of 552 soybean fields in 20 counties in Nebraska in 1986-88 revealed 35 fields infested with the soybean cyst nematode (SCN), Heterodera glycines. Identification was confirmed with a greenhouse bioassay, using \u27Lee 74\u27 soybean, and by the application of a DNA hybridization probe derived from SCN mitochondrial DNA. Most of the SCN-infested fields were located on the Missouri River floodplain and in the southeastern corner of the state

Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

BACKGROUND: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care. OBJECTIVES: To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e., regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = 8; high quality) and less overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = 4), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss/neonatal death before 24 weeks (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = 7), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = 3) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = 7). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss or neonatal death more than or equal to 24 weeks, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and overall fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care

A mixed-methods feasibility study of an intervention to improve men's mental health and wellbeing during their transition to fatherhood.

BackgroundMany health visiting services in England use the Promotional Guide system with mothers and fathers, an intervention to support their transition to parenthood, but there is little known about its use and effectiveness, especially with fathers. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of the Promotional Guide system with first-time fathers and pilot potential outcome measures to assess their mental health and wellbeing.MethodsA mixed methods prospective observational cohort study. Expectant first-time fathers were recruited from four London (UK) local authority boroughs. Data were collected through online pre and post intervention questionnaires, and semi-structured telephone interviews. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analysed using framework analysis.ResultsEighty-six fathers were interested in participating; 7 did not meet inclusion criteria and 79 were invited to complete the baseline questionnaire. Questionnaires completed by 45 men at both timepoints were included in the final analysis. Mean and standard deviations were calculated for all outcomes, showing a slight deterioration in the scores across all measures in the postnatal period compared to the antenatal. Ten of these men were also interviewed. Six major categories were identified: 1) Experience of health visitor contact, 2) Experience of Promotional Guides, 3) Experience of perinatal health services, 4) Experience of fatherhood, 5) Fathers' mental health and wellbeing, and 6) Experience of the research process. While antenatal and postnatal outcomes were collected from 45 first-time fathers, none had received the intervention in its entirety. This study identified major gaps in the implementation of the Promotional Guide system with fathers.ConclusionThis study assessed recruitment of first-time fathers, time to complete recruitment, and retention rates and identified outcome measures that could be used in a future definitive study. While it wasn't possible to examine the potential changes following the use of the Promotional Guide system, the study reported on the changes in the fathers' 'states' in the antenatal and postnatal period. It provided a narrative on whether first-time fathers found it acceptable to be asked about their mental health and wellbeing, highlighted their specific needs during their transition to fatherhood, and how they wanted to be supported. It also identified barriers to implementation of the Promotional Guide system by health visitors, which need to be addressed prior to any future research into this intervention. These findings have a number of implications for researchers, health professionals, health service managers, commissioners, policy makers and parents

Development of a core outcome set for effectiveness studies of breech birth at term (Breech-COS)-an international multi-stakeholder Delphi study: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Women pregnant with a breech-presenting foetus at term are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The most common intervention used to improve neonatal outcomes is planned delivery by caesarean section. But this is not always possible, and some women prefer to plan a vaginal birth. A number of providers have proposed alternative interventions, such as delivery protocols or specialist teams, but heterogeneity in reported outcomes and their measurements prevents meaningful comparisons. The aim of this paper is to present a protocol for a study to develop a Breech Core Outcome Set (Breech-COS) for studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes associated with term breech birth. METHODS: The development of a Breech-COS includes three phases. First, a systematic literature review will be conducted to identify outcomes previously used in effectiveness studies of breech birth at term. A focus group discussion will be conducted with the study's pre-established Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group, to enable service user perspectives on the results of the literature review to influence the design of the Delphi survey instrument. Second, an international Delphi survey will be conducted to prioritise outcomes for inclusion in the Breech-COS from the point of view of key stakeholders, including perinatal care providers and families who have experienced a term breech pregnancy. Finally, a consensus meeting will be held with stakeholders to ratify the Breech-COS and disseminate findings for application in future effectiveness studies. DISCUSSION: The expectation is that the Breech-COS will always be collected in all clinical trials, audits of practice and other forms of observation research that concern breech birth at term, along with other outcomes of interest. This will facilitate comparing, contrasting and combining studies with the ultimate goal of improved maternal and neonatal outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) #1749