Why are women deciding against birth in alongside midwifery units? A prospective single-center study from Germany.
birth
midwife units
model of care
normal childbirth
obstetrics
place of delivery
Journal
Journal of perinatal medicine
ISSN: 1619-3997
Titre abrégé: J Perinat Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0361031
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Oct 2022
26 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
27
01
2022
accepted:
24
04
2022
pubmed:
26
5
2022
medline:
1
10
2022
entrez:
25
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
For healthy women entering labor after an uneventful pregnancy, advantages of birth in midwife-led models of care have been demonstrated. We aimed to study the level of awareness regarding care in alongside midwifery units (AMU), factors involved in the decision for birth in obstetrician-led units (OLU), and wishes for care and concerns about birth in women registering for birth in OLU who would have been eligible for care in AMU. Healthy women with a term singleton cephalic fetus after an uneventful pregnancy course booking for birth in OLU were prospectively recruited. Data were collected by questionnaire. In total, 324 questionnaires were analyzed. One quarter (23.1%) of participants never had heard of care in AMU. Two thirds (64.2%) of women had made their choice regarding model of care before entering late pregnancy; only 16.4% indicated that health professionals had the biggest impact on their decision. One-to-one care and the availability of a pediatrician were most commonly quoted wishes (30.8 and 34.0%, respectively), and the occurrence of an adverse maternal or perinatal event the greatest concern (69.5%). Although the majority of respondents had some knowledge about care in AMU, expressed wishes for birth matching core features of AMU and concerns matching those of OLU, a decision for birth in OLU was taken. This finding may be a result of lack of knowledge about details of care in AMU; additionally, wishes and concerns may be put aside in favor of other criteria.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35611852
pii: jpm-2022-0041
doi: 10.1515/jpm-2022-0041
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1124-1134Informations de copyright
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.
Références
IQTIG – Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen . Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2017 Geburtshilfe Qualitätsindikatoren, Berlin [cited 2021 Dec 21] . Available from: https://iqtig.org/downloads/auswertung/2017/16n1gebh/QSKH_16n1-GEBH_2017_QIDB_V01_2018-04-06.pdf .
Loytved, C. Qualitätsbericht Gesellschaft für Qualität in der außerklinischen Geburtshilfe. Storkow: QUAG e.V.; 2017: Außerklinische Geburtshilfe in Deutschland [cited 2021 Dec 21] . Available from: https://www.quag.de/downloads/QUAG_bericht2017.pdf .
Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss . Richtlinie des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über Maßnahmen zur Qualitätssicherung der Versorgung von Früh- und Reifgeborenen, Berlin [cited 2022 Mar 14] . Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-2681/QFR-RL_2021-12-02_iK-2021-12-02.pdf .
Bauer, N, Kehrbach, A, Krahl, A, von Rahden, O, zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, F. Handbuch Hebammenkreißsaal: Von der Idee zur Umsetzung . Osnabrück: Verbund Hebammenforschung; 2007.
Brocklehurst, P, Hardy, P, Hollowell, J, Linsell, L, Macfarlane, A, McCourt, C, et al.. Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the Birthplace in England national prospective cohort study: Birthplace in England Collaborative Group. BMJ 2011;343:d7400. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7400 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7400
McLachlan, HL, Forster, DA, Davey, MA, Farrell, T, Gold, L, Biro, MA, et al.. Effects of continuity of care by a primary midwife (caseload midwifery) on caesarean section rates in women of low obstetric risk: the COSMOS randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2012;119:1483–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03446.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03446.x
Bolten, N, de Jonge, A, Zwagerman, E, Zwagerman, P, Klomp, T, Zwart, JJ, et al.. Effect of planned place of birth on obstetric interventions and maternal outcomes among low-risk women: a cohort study in The Netherlands. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016;16:329. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1130-6 .
doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1130-6
Snowden, JM, Tilden, EL, Snyder, J, Quigley, B, Caughey, AB, Cheng, YW. Planned out-of-hospital birth and birth outcomes. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2642–53. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa1501738 .
doi: 10.1056/nejmsa1501738
Grigg, CP, Tracy, SK, Tracy, M, Daellenbach, R, Kensington, M, Monk, A, et al.. Evaluating Maternity Units: a prospective cohort study of freestanding midwife-led primary maternity units in New Zealand-clinical outcomes. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016288. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016288 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016288
Sandall, J, Soltani, H, Gates, S, Shennan, A, Devane, D. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Collaboration 2016;4:CD004667. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5
Bohren, MA, Hofmeyr, GJ, Sakala, C, Fukuzawa, RK, Cuthbert, A. Continuous support for women during childbirth (Review). Cochrane Collaboration 2017;7:CD003766. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub6 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub6
Hutton, E, Reitsma, A, Kaufman, K. Outcomes associated with planned home and planned hospital births in low-risk women attended by midwives in Ontario, Canada, 2003–2006: a retrospective cohort study. Birth 2009;36:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00322.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00322.x
Maimburg, RD. Homebirth organised in a caseload midwifery model with affiliation to a Danish university hospital – a descriptive study. Sex Reprod Healthc 2018;16:82–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2018.02.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2018.02.011
Homer, CSE, Cheah, SL, Rossiter, C, Dahlen, HG, Ellwood, D, Foureur, MJ, et al.. Maternal and perinatal outcomes by planned place of birth in Australia 2000–2012: a linked population data study. BMJ Open 2019;9:e029192. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029192 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029192
Scarf, VL, Rossiter, C, Vedam, S, Dahlen, HG, Ellwood, D, Forster, D, et al.. Maternal and perinatal outcomes by planned place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Midwifery 2018;62:240–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2018.03.024 .
doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.03.024
Bundesministerium für Gesundheit . Nationales Gesundheitsziel: Gesundheit rund um die Geburt, Berlin [cited 2021 Dec 21] . Available from: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/5_Publikationen/Gesundheit/Broschueren/Nationales_Gesundheitsziel_Gesundheit_rund_um_die_Geburt.pdf .
Ministerium für Gesundheit . Emanzipation, Pflege und Alter des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Der Runde Tisch Geburtshilfe: Abschlussbericht, Düsseldorf [cited 2021 Dec 21] . Available from: https://www.mags.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/finale_fassung_abschlussbericht_rt_-_pdf.pdf .
Albrecht, M, Bock, H, an der Heiden, I, Loos, S, Ochmann, R, Sander, M, et al.. Stationäre Hebammenversorgung: Gutachten für das Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Berlin [cited 2021 Dec 21] . Available from: https://www.iges.com/sites/iges.de/myzms/content/e6/e1621/e10211/e24893/e24894/e24895/e24897/attr_objs24976/IGES_stationaere_Hebammenversorgung_092019_ger.pdf .
Deutscher Hebammenverband e.V . Hebammen-Kreißsäle – Deutscher HebammenVerband e.V., Karlsruhe [cited 2021 Dec 21] . Available from: https://www.hebammenverband.de/familie/hebammen-kreisssaele/ .
Merz, WM, Heep, A, Kandeepan, P, Tietjen, SL, Kocks, A. Survey of alongside midwifery-led care in North Rhine-Westfalia, Germany. J Perinat Med 2019;48:34–9. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2019-0313 .
doi: 10.1515/jpm-2019-0313
R Core Team . R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Copenhagen . Available from: https://www.R-project.org/ .
Mattern, E, Lohmann, S, Ayerle, GM. Experiences and wishes of women regarding systemic aspects of midwifery care in Germany: a qualitative study with focus groups. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017;17:389. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1552-9 .
doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1552-9
Hinton, L, Dumelow, C, Rowe, R, Hollowell, J. Birthplace choices: what are the information needs of women when choosing where to give birth in England? A qualitative study using online and face to face focus groups. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1601-4 .
doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1601-4
Rayment, J, Rance, S, McCourt, C, Sandall Cbe Rm, J. Barriers to women’s access to alongside midwifery units in England. Midwifery 2019;77:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2019.06.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2019.06.010
Hollowell, J, Li, Y, Malouf, R, Buchanan, J. Women’s birth place preferences in the United Kingdom: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the quantitative literature. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016;16:213. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0998-5 .
doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0998-5
Coxon, K, Chisholm, A, Malouf, R, Rowe, R, Hollowell, J. What influences birth place preferences, choices and decision-making amongst healthy women with straightforward pregnancies in the UK? A qualitative evidence synthesis using a ‘best fit’ framework approach. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017;17:103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1279-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1279-7
Darling, EK, Grenier, L, Nussey, L, Murray-Davis, B, Hutton, EK, Vanstone, M. Access to midwifery care for people of low socio-economic status: a qualitative descriptive study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019;19:416. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2577-z .
doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2577-z
Grigg, C, Tracy, SK, Daellenbach, R, Kensington, M, Schmied, V. An exploration of influences on women’s birthplace decision-making in New Zealand: a mixed methods prospective cohort within the Evaluating Maternity Units study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014;14:210. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-210 .
doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-210
Downe, S, Finlayson, K, Oladapo, OT, Bonet, M, Gülmezoglu, AM. What matters to women during childbirth: a systematic qualitative review. PLoS One 2018;13:e0194906. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194906 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194906
Sanders, RA, Crozier, K. How do informal information sources influence women’s decision-making for birth? A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1648-2 .
doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1648-2
Yuill, C, McCourt, C, Cheyne, H, Leister, N. Women’s experiences of decision-making and informed choice about pregnancy and birth care: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020;20:343. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03023-6 .
doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03023-6