Literature DB >> 22365576

Organisation of maternity care and choices of mode of birth: a worldwide view.

Hora Soltani1, Jane Sandall.   

Abstract

Drawing on the findings from a Cochrane systematic review of midwife-led care vs. other models of maternity care, this article discusses maternity organisation of care, women's choice of mode of birth and a global trend in reducing normality of childbirth. The review included 11 trials involving 12,276 women. The results showed that women who received models of midwife led care were less likely to experience fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation, less likely to have regional analgesia, less likely to have instrumental birth, less likely to have an episiotomy (with no significant differences in perineal lacerations), and were more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife, more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth, initiate breast feeding and more stated to feel in control. In addition, their babies were more likely to have a shorter length of hospital stay. No statistically significant differences were observed in fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks or in overall fetal/neonatal death between women who were allocated to the midwifery led care and those in the medical led care. In light of these findings, the interrelationship between social organisation of maternity care, philosophy of care and choice is explored using case examples with high and low rates of caesarean section rates. A worldwide overview of vaginal birth and caesarean section rates as indicators of normality (and lack of it) is also presented. Questions are raised with regard to the fast growing rate of caesarean section rates particularly among middle income countries. The rate of caesarean section is twice as much in private settings compared to public hospitals in these countries. In conclusion, the importance of sharing good practice among countries with particular attention to social location of midwifery, mobilisation of consumer groups as well as education of maternity health-care professionals and women, in facilitation of an effective 'informed choice', is highlighted. Areas for further global research on factors, which may influence women's choice of mode of birth are debated.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22365576     DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Midwifery        ISSN: 0266-6138            Impact factor:   2.372


  9 in total

1.  A routine tool with far-reaching influence: Australian midwives' views on the use of ultrasound during pregnancy.

Authors:  Kristina Edvardsson; Ingrid Mogren; Ann Lalos; Margareta Persson; Rhonda Small
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 3.007

2.  Audit of a new model of birth care for women with low risk pregnancies in South Africa: the primary care onsite midwife-led birth unit (OMBU).

Authors:  George Justus Hofmeyr; Thozeka Mancotywa; Nomvula Silwana-Kwadjo; Batembu Mgudlwa; Theresa A Lawrie; Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  Pregnant women's preferences for mode of delivery questionnaire: Psychometric properties.

Authors:  Fereshteh Zamani-Alavijeh; Parvin Shahry; Maryam Kalhori; Marzieh Araban
Journal:  J Educ Health Promot       Date:  2017-04-19

4.  Labour outcomes in caseload midwifery and standard care: a register-based cohort study.

Authors:  Ingrid Jepsen; Svend Juul; Maralyn Jean Foureur; Erik Elgaard Sørensen; Ellen Aagaard Nohr
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Socio-demographic determinants of women's satisfaction with prenatal and delivery care services in Italy.

Authors:  Valentina Tocchioni; Chiara Seghieri; Gustavo De Santis; Sabina Nuti
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 2.038

6.  Do you pay to go private?: a single centre comparison of induction of labour and caesarean section rates in private versus public patients.

Authors:  Simon Craven; Fionnuala Byrne; Rhona Mahony; Jennifer M Walsh
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 7.  Abdominal Cutaneous Thermography and Perfusion Mapping after Caesarean Section: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Charmaine Childs; Hora Soltani
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Factors influencing utilisation of services provided by community midwives and their non-retention in district Thatta, Pakistan: a qualitative study protocol.

Authors:  Bakhtawar M Hanif Khowaja; Anam Shahil Feroz; Sarah Saleem
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 3.006

9.  A retrospective cohort study of mode of delivery among public and private patients in an integrated maternity hospital setting.

Authors:  Deirdre J Murphy; Tom Fahey
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 2.692

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.