The cultural politics of 'Implementation Science'

Despite the growing profile of ‘implementation science’, its status as a field of study remains ambiguous. Implementation science originates in the evidence-based movement and attempts to broaden the scope of evidence-based medicine to improve ‘clinical effectiveness’ and close the ‘implementation gap’. To achieve this agenda, implementation science draws on methodologies from the social sciences to emphasise coherence between qualitative and quantitative approaches. In so doing, we ask if this is at the expense of ignoring the dominating tendencies of the evidence-based movement and consider if some of the methodologies being drawn on should be considered irreconcilable with evidence-based methodologies

Born in the USA: Exceptionalism in Maternity Care Organisation Among High-Income Countries

In lay terms, childbirth is regarded as a purely biological event: what is more natural than birth and death? On the other hand, social scientists have long understood that \'natural\' events are socially structured. In the case of birth, sociologists have examined the social and cultural shaping of its timing, outcome, and the organization of care throughout the perinatal period. Continuing in this tradition, we examine the peculiar social design of birth in the United States of America, contrasting this design with the ways birth is organised in Europe. We begin by showing how several key characteristics of the US health care system – including its inherent social inequality, its high level of medicalisation, and the substantial influence of private medical practice and insurance companies – influence the organization of maternity care there. We then explore how cultural characteristics of American society – its emphasis on individuality, the influence of moral conservatism in US politics, and the ease with which ordinary people take court action (the so-called \'litigation culture\') – shape the delivery of care at birth. We conclude with a consideration of the implications of US maternity care exceptionalism for comparative sociological analysis.Pregnancy, Comparative Studies, Exceptionalism, United States, Midwifery, Maternity Care, Birth

Social Service Professional or Market Expert? Maternity Care Relations under Neoliberal Healthcare Reform

Recent developments in the organization and practice of healthcare, driven by the introduction of (quasi-) markets and privatization, are altering traditional forms of professionalism found in high- and middle-income countries. Yet there remains debate about whether these neoliberal trends are universal or country specific, and whether they have any effect (positive or negative) on health service delivery. This article develops a comparative analysis that focuses on changes in maternity service systems in four countries in Northern Europe and the Americas with primarily publicly financed healthcare systems: the UK, Finland, Chile and Canada. The article begins with a discussion of the continuum of professional forms found in the post-Second World War period and their relationship to different kinds of welfare e states. It then focuses on the impact of recent neoliberal reforms on the ideological projects of the medical and allied health professions in the four case examples. The results show that variation across time and place is mainly the result of structural/ economic factors and that various forms of professional discourses are the result of the public/private ways that healthcare systems are organized. The article concludes with suggestions for further comparative sociological research

Organising safe and sustainable care in alongside midwifery units: Findings from an organisational ethnographic study

Aims and Background: Alongside midwifery units (AMUs, also known as hospital or co-located birth centres) were identified as a novel hybrid organisational form in the Birthplace in England Research Programme. This follow-on study aimed to investigate how AMUs are organised, staffed and managed, the experiences of women, and maternity staff including those who work in AMUs and in adjacent obstetric units. This article focuses on study findings relating to the organisation and management of AMUs. Methods: An organisational ethnography approach was used, incorporating case studies of four AMUs, selected for maximum variation on the basis of geographical context, length of establishment, size of unit, leadership and physical design. Interviews were conducted between December 2011 and October 2012 with service managers and key stakeholders (n=35), with professionals working within and in relation to AMUs (n=54) and with postnatal women and birth partners (n=47). Observations were conducted of key decision-making points in the service (n=20). Findings: Managers saw four key areas as vital to developing and sustaining good quality midwifery unit care: finance and service management support, staffing, training, and appropriate guidelines. Development of AMUs was often opportunistic, with service leaders making use of service reconfigurations to achieve change, including development of MUs and new care pathways. Midwives working in AMUs valued the environment, approach and the opportunity to exercise greater clinical judgement but relations between groups of midwives in different units could be experienced as problematic. Key potential challenges for the quality, safety and sustainability of AMU care included: boundary work and management; professional issues; developing appropriate staffing models and relationships; midwives’ skills and confidence; and information and access for women. Responses to such challenges included greater focus on interdisciplinary skills training, and integrated models of midwifery and care pathways. Positive leadership and appropriate development and use of guidelines were important to underpin the development and sustainability of midwifery units. Conclusions: The units studied had been developed to form a key part of the maternity service, and their role was increasingly being recognised as valid and as maintaining the quality and safety of care in the maternity service as a whole. However, each was providing birth care for only about a third of women who had been classified as eligible to plan birth outside an obstetric unit at the end of pregnancy. Developing midwifery units involves aligning physical, professional and philosophical boundaries. However, this poses challenges when managing the service, to ensure it is sustainable, of high quality and safe. In order to fulfil evidence-based guidelines on providing midwifery unit care, further attention is needed to staff training and support; the development of integrated, continuity-based staffing models; and ensuring AMUs are positioned as a core service rather than a marginal one

Cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth in woman at low risk of complications: evidence from the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study

Objectives To estimate the cost effectiveness of alternative planned places of birth

Protocol for the IMPART study: IMplementation of the preterm birth surveillance PAthway – a RealisT evaluation

Introduction New guidance, from NHS England (Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2 Element 5 (SBLCBv2)) has recommended a best practice pathway for women at risk of preterm birth (the Preterm Birth Pathway). This is to help meet the Department of Health’s aim to reduce preterm birth from 8% to 6% by 2025. Considering most hospitals do not currently have a preterm prevention clinic, implementing this pathway will require significant coordination. Methods and analysis The study will aim to investigate key features of contexts, mechanisms and outcomes, and their interactions in the implementation of the asymptomatic prediction and prevention components of the SBLCBv2 Preterm Birth Surveillance Pathway. This will be through a theory driven realist evaluation, utilising mixed methods (interviews with staff and women, observational analysis and analysing routinely collected hospital and admin data) in three case sites in England. The study has a Project Advisory Group composed of five women who have recently given birth. Ethics and dissemination The study has ethical approval (King’s College London REC approval number: MRSP-20/21-20955, and, IRAS:289144). A dissemination plan will be fully created with the Project Advisory Group, and we anticipate this will include presenting at conferences, publications, webinars, alongside dissemination to the wider population through parent and baby groups, the media and charities. Trial registration number ISRCTN57127874