Lorena Binfa1, Loreto Pantoja2, Jovita Ortiz3, Gabriel Cavada4, Peter Schindler5, Rosa Ypania Burgos6, Célia Regina Maganha E Melo7, Lúcia Cristina Florentino Pereira da Silva8, Marlise de Oliveira Pimentel Lima9, Laura Valli Hernández10, Rosana Schlenker Rm11, Verdún Sánchez12, Mirian Solis Rojas13, Betty Cruz Huamán14, Maria Luisa Torres Chauca15, Alicia Cillo16, Susana Lofeudo17, Sandra Zapiola18, Fiona Weeks19, Jennifer Foster20. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Women's and New Born Health Promotion-School of Midwifery, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile; University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic. Electronic address: lbinfa@med.uchile.cl. 2. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Women's and New Born Health Promotion-School of Midwifery, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile; University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic. Electronic address: lpantoja@med.uchile.cl. 3. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Women's and New Born Health Promotion-School of Midwifery, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile; University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic. Electronic address: jortizc@med.uchile.cl. 4. Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Santiago, University of Chile, Chile; University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic. Electronic address: gcavada@med.uchile.cl. 5. Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, United States; University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic. Electronic address: Peter.Schindler@emory.edu. 6. Department of Nursing, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic. Electronic address: rosaburgos90@yahoo.com. 7. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; School of Midwifery, Universidad de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: celiamelo@usp.br. 8. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; School of Midwifery, Universidad de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: lucris@usp.br. 9. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; School of Midwifery, Universidad de Sao Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: mop.lima@hotmail.com. 10. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; School of Midwifery, Universidad de La República, Uruguay. Electronic address: lalavalher@gmail.com. 11. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; School of Midwifery, Universidad de La República, Uruguay. Electronic address: rosslenker@hotmail.com. 12. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; School of Midwifery, Universidad de La República, Uruguay. Electronic address: vsanchez.uy@gmail.com. 13. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; Universidad Mayor Nacional de San Marcos, Peru. Electronic address: misolroj2@gmail.com. 14. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; Hospital Santa Rosa Lima, Peru. Electronic address: bcruzh@hotmail.com. 15. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; Hospital Santa Rosa Lima, Peru. Electronic address: mltorresch@hotmail.com. 16. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; School of Midwifery Universidad Católica de La Plata, Argentina. Electronic address: aliciacillo@hotmail.com. 17. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; School of Midwifery Universidad Católica de La Plata, Argentina. Electronic address: sblofeudo03@yahoo.com.ar. 18. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; School of Midwifery Universidad Católica de La Plata, Argentina. Electronic address: sfz_66@yahoo.com.ar. 19. University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, United States. Electronic address: fweeks2@jhu.edu. 20. Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, United States; University Regional Hospital San Vicente de Paul, San Francisco de Macorís, Dominican Republic. Electronic address: Jennifer.foster@emory.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: over the past three decades there has been a social movement in Latin American countries (LAC) to support humanised, physiologic birth. Rates of caesarean section overall in Latin America are approximately 35%, increasing up to 85% in some cases. There are many factors related to poor outcomes with regard to maternal and newborn/infant health in LAC countries. Maternal and perinatal outcome data within and between countries is scarce and inaccurate. The aims of this study were to: i) describe selected obstetric and neonatal outcomes of women who received midwifery care, ii) identify the level of maternal well-being after experiencing midwifery care in 6 Latin America countries. DESIGN: this was a cross sectional and descriptive study, conducted in selected maternity units in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Peru, and Uruguay. Quantitative methods were used to measure midwifery processes of care and maternal perceptions of well-being in labour and childbirth through a validated survey of maternal well-being and an adapted version of the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) standardized antepartum and intrapartum data set. SETTING: Maternity units from 6 Latin American countries. PARTICIPANTS: the final sample was a convenience sample, and the total participants for all sites in the six countries was 3009 low risk women. FINDINGS: for the countries reporting, overall, 82% of these low risk women had spontaneous vaginal deliveries. The rate of caesarean section was 16%; the Dominican Republic had the highest rate of Caesarean sections (30%) and Peru had the lowest rate (4%). The use of oxytocin in labour was widely variable, although overall there was a high proportion of women whose labour was augmented or induced. Ambulation was common, with the lowest proportion (48%) of women ambulating in labour in Chile, Uruguay (50%), Peru (65%), Brazil (85%). The presence of continuous support was highest in Uruguay (93%), Chile (75%) and Argentina (55%), and Peru had the lowest (22%). Episiotomies are still prevalent in all countries, the lowest rate was reported in the Dominican Republic (22%), and the highest rates were 52 and 53% (Chile and Peru, respectively). The Optimal Maternal well-being score had a prevalence of 43.5%, adequate score was 30.8%; 25% of the total sample of women rated their well-being during labour and childbirth as poor. KEY CONCLUSIONS: despite evidence-based guidelines and recommendations, birth is not managed accordingly in most cases. Women feel that care is adequate, although some women report mistreatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: More research is needed to understand why such high levels of intervention exist and to test the implementation of evidence-based practices in local settings.
OBJECTIVE: over the past three decades there has been a social movement in Latin American countries (LAC) to support humanised, physiologic birth. Rates of caesarean section overall in Latin America are approximately 35%, increasing up to 85% in some cases. There are many factors related to poor outcomes with regard to maternal and newborn/infant health in LAC countries. Maternal and perinatal outcome data within and between countries is scarce and inaccurate. The aims of this study were to: i) describe selected obstetric and neonatal outcomes of women who received midwifery care, ii) identify the level of maternal well-being after experiencing midwifery care in 6 Latin America countries. DESIGN: this was a cross sectional and descriptive study, conducted in selected maternity units in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Peru, and Uruguay. Quantitative methods were used to measure midwifery processes of care and maternal perceptions of well-being in labour and childbirth through a validated survey of maternal well-being and an adapted version of the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) standardized antepartum and intrapartum data set. SETTING: Maternity units from 6 Latin American countries. PARTICIPANTS: the final sample was a convenience sample, and the total participants for all sites in the six countries was 3009 low risk women. FINDINGS: for the countries reporting, overall, 82% of these low risk women had spontaneous vaginal deliveries. The rate of caesarean section was 16%; the Dominican Republic had the highest rate of Caesarean sections (30%) and Peru had the lowest rate (4%). The use of oxytocin in labour was widely variable, although overall there was a high proportion of women whose labour was augmented or induced. Ambulation was common, with the lowest proportion (48%) of women ambulating in labour in Chile, Uruguay (50%), Peru (65%), Brazil (85%). The presence of continuous support was highest in Uruguay (93%), Chile (75%) and Argentina (55%), and Peru had the lowest (22%). Episiotomies are still prevalent in all countries, the lowest rate was reported in the Dominican Republic (22%), and the highest rates were 52 and 53% (Chile and Peru, respectively). The Optimal Maternal well-being score had a prevalence of 43.5%, adequate score was 30.8%; 25% of the total sample of women rated their well-being during labour and childbirth as poor. KEY CONCLUSIONS: despite evidence-based guidelines and recommendations, birth is not managed accordingly in most cases. Women feel that care is adequate, although some women report mistreatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: More research is needed to understand why such high levels of intervention exist and to test the implementation of evidence-based practices in local settings.
Authors: Leila Bernarda Donato Gottems; Elisabete Mesquita Peres De Carvalho; Dirce Guilhem; Maria Raquel Gomes Maia Pires Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2018-05-17