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


Journal

Midwifery
ISSN: 1532-3099
Titre abrégé: Midwifery
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 8510930

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Historique:
received: 30 01 2019
revised: 18 06 2019
accepted: 20 06 2019
pubmed: 5 7 2019
medline: 25 2 2020
entrez: 5 7 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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. 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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 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 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 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31271963
pii: S0266-6138(19)30133-0
doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2019.06.010
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

78-85

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 10/1008/35
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Auteurs

Juliet Rayment (J)

Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City, University of London, 1 Myddelton Street, London EC1R 1UB, UK. Electronic address: juliet.rayment.1@city.ac.uk.

Susanna Rance (S)

Department of Women's Health, School of Life Course Science, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, North Wing, St. Thomas' Hospital London, London SE1 7EH, UK; Present affiliation: School of Health, Sport and Bioscience, College of Applied Health and Communities, University of East London, Water Lane, London E15 4LZ, UK. Electronic address: s.rance@uel.ac.uk.

Christine McCourt (C)

Centre for Maternal and Child Health Research, City, University of London, 1 Myddelton Street, London EC1R 1UB, UK. Electronic address: christine.mccourt@city.ac.uk.

Jane Sandall Cbe Rm (J)

Department of Women's Health, School of Life Course Science, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, North Wing, St. Thomas' Hospital London, London SE1 7EH, UK. Electronic address: jane.sandall@kcl.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH