Potential improvement of pregnancy outcome through prenatal small for gestational age detection

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in mode of delivery and pregnancy outcome between prenatally detected and nonprenatally detected small for gestational age (SGA) neonates born at term.STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study. All singleton infants, born SGA in cephalic position between 36(0/7) and 41(0/7) weeks gestation, were classified as either prenatally detected SGA or nonprenatally detected SGA. With propensity score matching we created groups with comparable baseline characteristics. We compared these groups for composite adverse perinatal outcome, labor induction, and cesarean section rates.RESULTS: We included 718 SGA infants, of whom 555 (77%) were not prenatally detected. Composite adverse neonatal outcome did not differ statistically significant between the matched prenatally detected and the nonprenatally detected group (5.5 vs. 7.4%, odds ratio [OR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-1.8). However, perinatal mortality only occurred in the nonprenatally detected group (1.8% [3/163] in the matched cohort, 1.3% [7/555] in the complete cohort). In the propensity matched prenatally detected SGA group both induction of labor (57 vs. 9%, OR 14.0, 95% CI: 7.4-26.2) and cesarean sections (20 vs. 8%, OR 2.9, 95% CI: 1.5-5.8) were more often performed compared with the nonprenatally detected SGA group.CONCLUSION: Prenatal SGA detection at term allows timely induction of labor and cesarean sections thus potentially preventing stillbirth

Pregnant women's willingness to participate in a randomized trial comparing induction of labor at 39 weeks versus expectant management: A survey in the Netherlands

IntroductionA randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the United States, the ARRIVE trial, has indicated that induction of labor (IOL) in low-risk nulliparous women with a gestational age (GA) of 39 weeks compared to expectant management (EM) resulted in a significant lower rate of cesarean deliveries. The Dutch maternity care system is different compared to the United States with, among other factors, an overall significantly lower percentage of caesarean sections (CS). To investigate whether IOL has a favorable outcome in the Dutch maternity care system, a new trial is advised. In this questionnaire-based study we aim to evaluate whether Dutch low-risk pregnant women would be willing to participate in an RCT comparing IOL at 39 weeks to EM. Materials and methodsWe conducted an online survey in 2020 in the Netherlands. Respondent recruitment took place both in outpatient clinics at hospitals and midwife practices and via social media. Inclusion criteria were pregnant women with singleton gestation, GA ≤ 39 weeks, age 18 years or older and residency in the Netherlands. Exclusion criteria were multiple gestation, a history of a CS, planned IOL or CS in current pregnancy and GA > 39 weeks. A subgroup was formed of low risk (receiving primary care) nulliparous women with a gestational age between 34 and 39 weeks, comparable with the ARRIVE trial. ResultsThree hundred eighty respondents participated. Of all respondents (nulli- and multiparous), 47 (12.4%) would be willing to participate in the hypothetical RCT and 70 (18.4%) might be willing to participate. Amongst the 70 women in the subgroup 11 women (15.7%) would be willing to participate and 17 (24.3%) might be willing to participate. Discussion and conclusionCalculating sample size in a country with a low CS rate, in relation to 69.2% of women are not willing to participate in an RCT comparing IOL at 39 weeks with EM, would require >18.000 women to be counselled for participation. We believe such a study is a challenge in the Netherlands

Experiences and views of midwives performing antenatal cardiotocography in Dutch primary care: A qualitative study

Objective: In the current Dutch maternity care system, pregnant women who have an indication for an antenatal cardiotocography (CTG) to be undertaken need to be referred from primary midwife-led care to secondary obstetric-led care. Within three different regions in the Netherlands independent primary care midwives perform antenatal CTG in primary care, introduced as a pilot project. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experiences and views of primary care midwives who perform antenatal CTG in primary care. Design: Using a qualitative approach data were collected by seventeen in depth semi-structured interviews. The interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic coding. Setting: Three regions in the Netherlands where midwives carry out antenatal CTG in primary care during this pilot project. Participants: Seventeen primary care midwives were interviewed between July and November 2017. Findings: In general, midwives were satisfied with performing antenatal CTG and felt it contributed positively towards the midwife-client relationship. However, midwives experienced an increased workload, partly due to time-consuming technical difficulties. Furthermore, mixed feelings existed on whether antenatal CTG contributes to a more physiological or to a more pathological approach in midwifery practice. Most midwives believed that performing antenatal CTG contributes to the physiological process: strengthening of their gate-keeper role, increased confidence of their clients and improved midwife-client relationship. In contrast, some midwives believed it contributes to a pathological process: medicalization and relying too much on technical devices. Key conclusions: This study showed an overall positive attitude of primary care midwives towards performing antenatal CTG when required, in primary midwife-led care. However, performing the antenatal CTG can be a challenge for midwives, as midwifery care within this setting is often for healthy women who have a straightforward pregnancy. For some midwives, providing antenatal CTG monitoring in the primary care setting may be seen as using a pathological approach to midwifery care. Implications for practice: There seems to be a place for antenatal CTG in primary midwife-led care. However, further research is needed before this practice can be implemented widely

Antenatal anxiety and depressive symptoms and physiological birth

A comment on the recently published letter by Grogan and Srinivasan: The effect of antenatal depressive and anxious symptoms on the rate of physiological births

Changes in local protocols on inpatient cervical priming and introduction of outpatient priming: A nationwide survey in the Netherlands

Objective: The aims of this study are to assess (changes in) local procedures for inpatient cervical priming as part of induction of labor and to identify the implementation of outpatient cervical priming in the Netherlands. Methods: This survey study was conducted from October 2019 until January 2020; obstetricians of all 72 hospitals with a maternity unit in the Netherlands received a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of three parts: basic hospital data, local protocol on methods of inpatient induction of labor (IPI), local protocol for outpatient induction of labor (OPI). Results: A response was received from 66/72 hospitals, giving a response rate of 92%. For IPI the most preferred method was a Foley catheter (87.9%), 27.6% protocols switched to prostaglandins after day 1 if the cervix was not ripe yet. A prostaglandin gel or pessary was not the preferred method on day 1 but only used after 24 h in 5 hospitals (7.6%). OPI was offered in 53% (35/66 hospitals), all using a Foley catheter. Conclusion: In the Netherlands, local protocols for IPI have shifted towards the use of a Foley catheter. More than half of the hospitals offer OPI. As safety and efficacy data of OPI are lacking, research on this topic is urgently warranted

Visualization of contractions:Evaluation of a new experience design concept to enhance the childbirth experience

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate an innovative design proposition intended to help enhance the childbirth experience. The innovation consists of a smartphone application for birth preparation during pregnancy with information and coaching, in addition to a wall projection at the labor ward that visualizes the progress of labor based on uterine monitoring data.METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled clinical pilot study. Singleton pregnant people pursuing a vaginal birth were recruited between 28 and 32 weeks of gestation and allocated to the intervention group (mobile application during the third trimester and wall projection at the labor ward) or to care as usual. Childbirth expectations and experiences were measured with validated questionnaires, which were completed at 32 and 36 weeks of gestation, immediately after birth, and at 4 weeks postpartum. Quantitative outcomes were analyzed and feedback about the proposition was evaluated using qualitative methods.RESULTS: The qualitative feedback from patients was largely positive; however, we could not detect any significant differences between the intervention and control groups about fear of childbirth and other outcome measures.CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, we evaluated a new experience design proposition for pregnancy and childbirth. This study generated data that will help to further improve and evaluate similar innovations in the future. This application may facilitate participatory care, promoting active involvement of parents in the healthcare processes of pregnancy and childbirth.</p

Left powerless: A qualitative social media content analysis of the Dutch #breakthesilence campaign on negative and traumatic experiences of labour and birth

Introduction Disrespect and abuse during labour and birth are increasingly reported all over the world. In 2016, a Dutch client organization initiated an online campaign, #genoeggezwegen (#breakthesilence) which encouraged women to share negative and traumatic maternity care experiences. This study aimed (1) to determine what types of disrespect and abuse were described in #genoeggezwegen and (2) to gain a more detailed understanding of these experiences. Methods A qualitative social media content analysis was carried out in two phases. (1) A deductive coding procedure was carried out to identify types of disrespect and abuse, using Bohren et al.’s existing typology of mistreatment during childbirth. (2) A separate, inductive coding procedure was performed to gain further understanding of the data. Results 438 #genoeggezwegen stories were included. Based on the typology of mistreatment during childbirth, it was found that situations of ineffective communication, loss of autonomy and lack of informed consent and confidentiality were most often described. The inductive analysis revealed five major themes: ‘‘lack of informed consent”; ‘‘not being taken seriously and not being listened to”; ‘‘lack of compassion”; ‘‘use of force”; and ‘‘short and long term consequences”. “Left powerless” was identified as an overarching theme that occurred throughout all five main themes. Conclusion This study gives insight into the negative and traumatic maternity care experiences of Dutch women participating in the #genoeggezwegen campaign. This may indicate that disrespect and abuse during labour and birth do happen in the Netherlands, although the current study gives no insight into prevalence. The findings of this study may increase awareness amongst maternity care providers and the community of the existence of disrespect and abuse in Dutch maternity care, and encourage joint effort on improving care both individually and systemically/institutionally

Left powerless: A qualitative social media content analysis of the Dutch #breakthesilence campaign on negative and traumatic experiences of labour and birth

IntroductionDisrespect and abuse during labour and birth are increasingly reported all over the world. In 2016, a Dutch client organization initiated an online campaign, #genoeggezwegen (#breakthesilence) which encouraged women to share negative and traumatic maternity care experiences. This study aimed (1) to determine what types of disrespect and abuse were described in #genoeggezwegen and (2) to gain a more detailed understanding of these experiences.MethodsA qualitative social media content analysis was carried out in two phases. (1) A deductive coding procedure was carried out to identify types of disrespect and abuse, using Bohren et al.’s existing typology of mistreatment during childbirth. (2) A separate, inductive coding procedure was performed to gain further understanding of the data.Results438 #genoeggezwegen stories were included. Based on the typology of mistreatment during childbirth, it was found that situations of ineffective communication, loss of autonomy and lack of informed consent and confidentiality were most often described. The inductive analysis revealed five major themes: ‘‘lack of informed consent”; ‘‘not being taken seriously and not being listened to”; ‘‘lack of compassion”; ‘‘use of force”; and ‘‘short and long term consequences”. “Left powerless” was identified as an overarching theme that occurred throughout all five main themes.ConclusionThis study gives insight into the negative and traumatic maternity care experiences of Dutch women participating in the #genoeggezwegen campaign. This may indicate that disrespect and abuse during labour and birth do happen in the Netherlands, although the current study gives no insight into prevalence. The findings of this study may increase awareness amongst maternity care providers and the community of the existence of disrespect and abuse in Dutch maternity care, and encourage joint effort on improving care both individually and systemically/institutionally

The influence of various induction methods on adverse outcomes in small for gestational age neonates : A secondary analysis of the PROBAAT 1 and 2 trials

Funding Information: The original PROBAAT-2 trial was funded by FondsNutsOhra. For the PROBAAT-1 trial and this follow-up study, no funding was received. MV received a doctoral grant for teachers by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (023.011.051). BM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). Funding sources had no role in design, execution, analyses, interpretation, or decision to submit results.Peer reviewedPublisher PD