Evaluation of satisfaction with care in a midwifery unit and an obstetric unit: a randomized controlled trial of low-risk women

Publisher's version, source: http://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0932-x.BACKGROUND Satisfaction with birth care is part of quality assessment of care. The aim of this study was to investigate possible differences in satisfaction with intrapartum care among low-risk women, randomized to a midwifery unit or to an obstetric unit within the same hospital. METHODS Randomized controlled trial conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Østfold Hospital Trust, Norway. A total of 485 women with no expressed preference for level of birth care, assessed to be at low-risk at onset of spontaneous labor were included. To assess the overall satisfaction with intrapartum care, the Labour and Delivery Satisfaction Index (LADSI) questionnaire, was sent to the participants 6 months after birth. To assess women’s experience with intrapartum transfer, four additional items were added. In addition, we tested the effects of the following aspects on satisfaction; obstetrician involved, intrapartum transfer from the midwifery unit to the obstetric unit during labor, mode of delivery and epidural analgesia. RESULTS Women randomized to the midwifery unit were significantly more satisfied with intrapartum care than those randomized to the obstetric unit (183 versus 176 of maximum 204 scoring points, mean difference 7.2, p = 0.002). No difference was found between the units for women who had an obstetrician involved during labor or delivery and who answered four additional questions on this aspect (mean item score 4.0 at the midwifery unit vs 4.3 at the obstetric unit, p = 0.3). Intrapartum transfer from the midwifery unit to an obstetric unit, operative delivery and epidurals influenced the level of overall satisfaction in a negative direction regardless of allocated unit (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Low-risk women with no expressed preference for level of birth care were more satisfied if allocated to the midwifery unit compared to the obstetric unit. TRIAL REGISTRATION The trial is registered at www.​clinicaltrials.​gov NCT00857129. Initially released 03/05/2009

The Constitutionalisation of Contract Law in Finland

This chapter discusses the constitutionalisation of Contract law in Finland and makes frequent comparative references to the other Nordic systems. It aims to describe how Constitutional law has gradually started to influence Contract law. Moreover, the analysis seeks to predict some key future developments concerning Constitutional Contract law in Finland. This chapter illustrates how relevant constitutional actors consider these two areas of law and how these actors may sometimes collide because of key doctrines and the constitutional structure. It is concluded that references to Constitutional and Human rights law are not going to replace traditional Contract law argumentation. In most cases, nevertheless, Constitutional and Human rights law offer a useful means to clarify and modify the arguments used in traditional Contract law reasoning. The authors expect growing significance and legal relevance of the relationship between Constitutional law and Contract law.Peer reviewe

Private Labels, Brands and Competition Policy: The Changing Landscape of Retail Competition

The growing use of private labels in recent years has affected significantly the landscape of retail competition, with major retailers no longer being confined to their traditional role as purchasers and distributors of branded goods. By selling their own-label products within their outlets they are competing with their upstream brand suppliers for sales and shelf space. This unique relationship, and the continued strengthening of private labels, raises important questions as to their pro-competitive effects and possible negative effects. This book provides an in-depth review of the range of competitive and intellectual property issues raised in connection with private brands in Europe and the US. It examines the development of private labels and their impact on retail competition, then moves on to focus on policy and question the adequacy of current economic and legal analysis in light of the characteristics of own-label competition, and finally it presents a thorough evaluation of the legal issues in the field, including chapters on horizontal and vertical effects, dominance, mergers and acquisitions, intellectual property, copycat packaging and consumer welfare. The book contains a collection of essays reflecting the debate on the impact of private labels upon competition, investment and innovation in the retail sector. The ideas and arguments underlying the articles have been developed through a series of seminars held in the Oxford Centre for Competition Law and Policy over the last three years. Participants in these seminars have included competition officials, law academics, practitioners and representatives from industry. Contributors to this volume - Dick Bell, Oxford Institute of Retail Management Ulf Bernitz, School of Law, Stockholm University and Director of the Oxford/Stockholm Wallenberg Venture in European Law at the Institute of European and Comparative Law, University of Oxford Terry Calvani, Of Counsel, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP Ratula Charkaborty, The Business School, Loughborough University Paul W Dobson, The Business School, Loughborough University Ariel Ezrachi, Director, The University of Oxford Centre for Competition law and Policy, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford Andres Font Galarza, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP David Gilo, Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University Alistair Gorrie, Partner, Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP Gundula Grewe, Faculty of Marketing, University of Hagen Richard Herbert, Global Insight and Development Director, Europanel Pieter Kuipers, Deputy General Cousel Europe, Unilever Ioannis Lianos, Faculty of Laws, University College London Philip Marsden, Director, Competition Law Forum, British Institute of International and Comparative Law Renato Nazzini, School of Law, University of Southampton Rainer Olbrich, Faculty of Marketing, University of Hagen Ruth Orenstrat, Faculty of Marketing, University of Hagen John Ratliff, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Jonathan Reynolds, Said Business School, University of Oxford Jeffrey Schmidt, Director, Bureau Competition, US FTC Howard Smith, Department of Economics, University of Oxford Robert L Steiner, Economic Consultant and former Economist, US FTC John Thanassoulis, Department of Economics, University of Oxford Peter Whelan, Competition Law Forum, British Institute of International and Comparative La

Private law principles, pluralism and perfectionism

This paper discusses the legitimacy of general principles of private law as they have been formulated recently by the Court of Justice of the European Union and proposed by the European Commission. It addresses challenges from different strands in political theory including liberal perfectionism, political liberalism and Habermasian discourse theory. There are four specific lessons to be learned from these theories. First, the quest should not be for very general and abstract principles with a very broad scope, but rather for principles of an intermediate level of abstraction and a limited scope, which could explain and bring coherence to a set of rules or a legal doctrine, but not to the whole law of contract. Private law principles which are too general and sweeping would risk to neglect the need for internal diversification within private law. Secondly, these private law principles should be situated on the non-constitutional level of ordinary private law, subject to the constitution (including its horizontal effect) which in turn must be compatible, in order to be legitimate, with the political principles of justice that the EU polity has given itself. Thirdly, the CJEU, although an institution that is not in itself a less legitimate lawmaker than the legislator, also when it comes to private law principles, has a strong duty to explain itself and to provide good reasons for adopting general principles of civil law and for choosing certain principles, especially if these principles happen to be controversial, either from a comparative law point of view or along any of the other axes along which European citizens and European Member States may differ. Finally, there is no legitimate place for strong perfectionism in the deliberation on fundamental European private law principles; any private law perfectionism should be either local (in specific doctrines like unfair exploitation) or thin (limited to values like rationality). However, as long as we remain cautious is all these respects, the quest for general private law principles is perfectly legitimate. There is no contradiction per se in seeking to find general private law principles in a pluralist world

Who decides on fundamental rights issues in Europe? Toward a mechanism to coordinate the roles of the national courts, the ECJ and the ECtHR

Modernity (Religion and Modernity