Midwives’ perceived barriers in communicating about depression with ethnic minority clients

Objective: This study aimed to assess the most influential barriers midwives perceive in communicating about depression-related symptoms with ethnic minority clients. Methods: In-depth interviews were held with midwives (N = 8) and Moroccan-Dutch women (N = 6) suffering from perinatal depression to identify the most salient communication barriers. Subsequently, an online survey among midwives (N = 60) assessing their perceived barriers and the occurrence of these barriers in practice was administered. Composite scores using the QUOTE methodology were calculated to determine influential barriers. Results: Three types of barriers emerged from the interviews. Educational-related barriers, client-related barriers and midwife-related barriers. Results of the survey showed that the most influential barriers were educational-related barriers (e.g. lack of culturally sensitive depression screening instruments) and client-related barriers (e.g. cultural taboo about talking about depression). Conclusion: Culturally sensitive screening instruments for depression and patient education materials should be developed to mitigate the educational-related barriers to communicating about depression. Patient education materials should also target the clients’ social environment (e.g. husbands) to help break the cultural taboo about depression. Practice implications: Based on this study's results, communication strategies to empower both midwives and ethnic minority clients with depression can be developed in a collaborative approach

Pregnancy related anxiety and general anxious or depressed mood and the choice for birth setting:A secondary data-analysis of the DELIVER study

BACKGROUND: In several developed countries women with a low risk of complications during pregnancy and childbirth can make choices regarding place of birth. In the Netherlands, these women receive midwife-led care and can choose between a home or hospital birth. The declining rate of midwife-led home births alongside the recent debate on safety of home births in the Netherlands, however, suggest an association of choice of birth place with psychological factors related to safety and risk perception. In this study associations of pregnancy related anxiety and general anxious or depressed mood with (changes in) planned place of birth were explored in low risk women in midwife-led care until the start of labour. METHODS: Data (n = 2854 low risk women in midwife-led care at the onset of labour) were selected from the prospective multicenter DELIVER study. Women completed the Pregnancy Related Anxiety Questionnaire-Revised (PRAQ-R) to assess pregnancy related anxiety and the EuroQol-6D (EQ-6D) for an anxious and/or depressed mood. RESULTS: A high PRAQ-R score was associated with planned hospital birth in nulliparous (aOR 1.92; 95% CI 1.32–2.81) and parous women (aOR 2.08; 95% CI 1.55–2.80). An anxious or depressed mood was associated with planned hospital birth (aOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.20–2.08) and with being undecided (aOR 1.99; 95% CI 1.23–2.99) in parous women only. The majority of women did not change their planned place of birth. Changing from an initially planned home birth to a hospital birth later in pregnancy was, however, associated with becoming anxious or depressed after 35 weeks gestation in nulliparous women (aOR 4.17; 95% CI 1.35–12.89) and with pregnancy related anxiety at 20 weeks gestation in parous women (aOR 3.91; 95% CI 1.32–11.61). CONCLUSION: Low risk women who planned hospital birth (or who were undecided) more often reported pregnancy related anxiety or an anxious or depressed mood. Women who changed from home to hospital birth during pregnancy more often reported pregnancy related anxiety or an anxious or depressed mood in late pregnancy. Anxiety should be adequately addressed in the process of informed decision-making regarding planned place of birth in low risk women

Effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasonography to reduce adverse perinatal outcomes in low risk pregnancy (the IRIS study): nationwide, pragmatic, multicentre, stepped wedge cluster randomised trial

Objectives To investigate the effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in the third trimester in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes in low risk pregnancies compared with usual care and the effect of this policy on maternal outcomes and obstetric interventions. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, stepped wedge cluster randomised trial. Setting 60 midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Participants 13 046 women aged 16 years or older with a low risk singleton pregnancy. Interventions 60 midwifery practices offered usual care (serial fundal height measurements with clinically indicated ultrasonography). After 3, 7, and 10 months, a third of the practices were randomised to the intervention strategy. As well as receiving usual care, women in the intervention strategy were offered two routine biometry scans at 28-30 and 34-36 weeks’ gestation. The same multidisciplinary protocol for detecting and managing fetal growth restriction was used in both strategies. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was a composite of severe adverse perinatal outcomes: perinatal death, Apgar score <4, impaired consciousness, asphyxia, seizures, assisted ventilation, septicaemia, meningitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leucomalacia, or necrotising enterocolitis. Secondary outcomes were two composite measures of severe maternal morbidity, and spontaneous labour and birth. Results Between 1 February 2015 and 29 February 2016, 60 midwifery practices enrolled 13 520 women in mid-pregnancy (mean 22.8 (SD 2.4) weeks’ gestation). 13 046 women (intervention n=7067, usual care n=5979) with data based on the national Dutch perinatal registry or hospital records were included in the analyses. Small for gestational age at birth was significantly more often detected in the intervention group than in the usual care group (179 of 556 (32%) v 78 of 407 (19%), P<0.001). The incidence of severe adverse perinatal outcomes was 1.7% (n=118) for the intervention strategy and 1.8% (n=106) for usual care. After adjustment for confounders, the difference between the groups was not significant (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.20). The intervention strategy showed a higher incidence of induction of labour (1.16, 1.04 to 1.30) and a lower incidence of augmentation of labour (0.78, 0.71 to 0.85). Maternal outcomes and other obstetric interventions did not differ between the strategies. Conclusion In low risk pregnancies, routine ultrasonography in the third trimester along with clinically indicated ultrasonography was associated with higher antenatal detection of small for gestational age fetuses but not with a reduced incidence of severe adverse perinatal outcomes compared with usual care alone. The findings do not support routine ultrasonography in the third trimester for low risk pregnancies. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR4367

Multidisciplinary consensus on screening for, diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction in the Netherlands

Screening for, diagnosis and management of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) is often performed in multidisciplinary collaboration. However, variation in screening methods, diagnosis and management of IUGR may lead to confusion. In the Netherlands two monodisciplinary guidelines on IUGR do not fully align. To facilitate effective collaboration between different professionals in perinatal care, we undertook a Delphi study with uniform recommendations as our primary result, focusing on issues that are not aligned or for which specifications are lacking in the current guidelines. We conducted a Delphi study in three rounds. A purposively sampled selection of 56 panellists participated: 27 representing midwife-led care and 29 obstetrician-led care. Consensus was defined as agreement between the professional groups on the same answer and among at least 70% of the panellists within groups. Per round 51 or 52 (91% - 93%) panellists responded. This has led to consensus on 27 issues, leading to four consensus based recommendations on screening for IUGR in midwife-led care and eight consensus based recommendations on diagnosis and eight on management in obstetrician-led care. The multidisciplinary project group decided on four additional recommendations as no consensus was reached by the panel. No recommendations could be made about induction of labour versus expectant monitoring, nor about the choice for a primary caesarean section. We reached consensus on recommendations for care for IUGR within a multidisciplinary panel. These will be implemented in a study on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasound for monitoring fetal growth. Research is needed to evaluate the effects of implementation of these recommendations on perinatal outcomes. NTR436

Perinatal mortality rate in the Netherlands compared to other European countries: a secondary analysis of Euro-PERISTAT data

Objective: the poor perinatal mortality ranking of the Netherlands compared to other European countries has led to questioning the safety of primary care births, particularly those at home. Primary care births are only planned at term. We therefore examined to which extent the perinatal mortality rate at term in the Netherlands contributes to its poor ranking. Design: secondary analyses using published data from the Euro-PERISTAT study. Setting and participants: women that gave birth in 2004 in the 29 European regions and countries called 'countries' included in the Euro-PERISTAT study (4,328,441 women in total and 1,940,977 women at term). Methods: odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the comparison of perinatal mortality rates between European countries and the Netherlands, through logistic regression analyses using summary country data. Main outcome measures: combined perinatal mortality rates overall and at term. Perinatal deaths below 28 weeks, between 28 and 37 weeks and from 37 weeks onwards per 1000 total births. Findings: compared to the Netherlands, perinatal mortality rates at term were significantly higher for Denmark and Latvia and not significantly different compared to seven other countries. Eleven countries had a significantly lower rate, and for eight the term perinatal mortality rate could not be compared. The Netherlands had the highest number of perinatal deaths before 28 weeks per 1000 total births (4.3). Key conclusions: the relatively high perinatal mortality rate in the Netherlands is driven more by extremely preterm births than births at term. Although the PERISTAT data cannot be used to show that the Dutch maternity care system is safe, neither should they be used to argue that the system is unsafe. The PERISTAT data alone do not support changes to the Dutch maternity care system that reduce the possibility for women to choose a home birth while benefits of these changes are uncertain. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd

Multidisciplinary consensus on screening for, diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction in the Netherlands

Background Screening for, diagnosis and management of intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) is often performed in multidisciplinary collaboration. However, variation in screening methods, diagnosis and management of IUGR may lead to confusion. In the Netherlands two monodisciplinary guidelines on IUGR do not fully align. To facilitate effective collaboration between different professionals in perinatal care, we undertook a Delphi study with uniform recommendations as our primary result, focusing on issues that are not aligned or for which specifications are lacking in the current guidelines. Methods We conducted a Delphi study in three rounds. A purposively sampled selection of 56 panellists participated: 27 representing midwife-led care and 29 obstetrician-led care. Consensus was defined as agreement between the professional groups on the same answer and among at least 70% of the panellists within groups. Results Per round 51 or 52 (91% - 93%) panellists responded. This has led to consensus on 27 issues, leading to four consensus based recommendations on screening for IUGR in midwife-led care and eight consensus based recommendations on diagnosis and eight on management in obstetrician-led care. The multidisciplinary project group decided on four additional recommendations as no consensus was reached by the panel. No recommendations could be made about induction of labour versus expectant monitoring, nor about the choice for a primary caesarean section. Conclusions We reached consensus on recommendations for care for IUGR within a multidisciplinary panel. These will be implemented in a study on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine third trimester ultrasound for monitoring fetal growth. Research is needed to evaluate the effects of implementation of these recommendations on perinatal outcomes.</p