| Literature DB >> 33926420 |
Frankie Fair1, Hora Soltani2, Liselotte Raben3, Yvonne van Streun3, Eirini Sioti4, Maria Papadakaki5, Catherine Burke1, Helen Watson1, Mervi Jokinen6,7,8, Eleanor Shaw9, Elena Triantafyllou4, Maria van den Muijsenbergh3,10, Victoria Vivilaki4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of international migrants continues to increase worldwide. Depending on their country of origin and migration experience, migrants may be at greater risk of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Having compassionate and culturally competent healthcare providers is essential to optimise perinatal care. The "Operational Refugee and Migrant Maternal Approach" (ORAMMA) project developed cultural competence training for health professionals to aid with providing perinatal care for migrant women. This presents an evaluation of ORAMMA training and explores midwives' experiences of the training and providing care within the ORAMMA project.Entities:
Keywords: Cultural competency; Maternal health service; Midwifery; ORAMMA; Perinatal care; Staff development; Transients and migrants
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33926420 PMCID: PMC8082812 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-03799-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Fig. 1Schematic overview of the ORAMMA project phases
Fig. 2Recruitment of the midwives across the three different countries
Baseline characteristics of midwives receiving training on culturally sensitive maternity care (n = 35)
| All ( | Greece ( | Netherlands ( | United Kingdom ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37.9 (24–60) | 37.9 (24–60) | 33.9 (25–54) | 43.6 (27–54) | |
| 2.9% (1/34) | 4.5% (1/22) | 0% (0/7) | 0% (0/5) | |
| 35.00 [30.0,37.0] | 34.0 [29.0,38.0] | 36.0 [30.0,37.0] | 35.0 [31.0,37.0] | |
| None | 0.0% (0/35) | 0% (0/23) | 0% (0/7) | 0% (0/5) |
| 1–10 women | 2.9% (1/35) | 0% (0/23) | 14.3% (1/7) | 0% (0/5) |
| > 10 women | 97.1% (34/35) | 100% (23/23) | 85.7% (6/7) | 100% (5/5) |
| None | 8.6% (3/35) | 13.1% (3/23) | 0% (0/7) | 0% (0/5) |
| 1–5 women | 20.0% (7/35) | 30.4% (7/23) | 0% (0/7) | 0% (0/5) |
| 6–10 women | 8.6% (3/35) | 8.7% (2/23) | 14.3% (1/7) | 0% (0/5) |
| > 10 women | 62.8% (22/35) | 47.8% (11/23) | 85.7% (6/7) | 100% (5/5) |
| < 1 year | Unknown* | Unknown* | 0% (0/7) | 0% (0/5) |
| 1–5 years | 57.1% (4/7) | 0% (0/5) | ||
| 6–10 years | 0% (0/7) | 40% (2/5) | ||
| > 10 years | 42.9% (3/7) | 60% (3/5) | ||
* Questions missing from the translations in the questionnaire for that country
CC-GRAS Cultural Competence Groningen Reflection Ability Scale. The Groningen Reflection Ability Scale (GRAS) is a validated scale that measures participants’ general ability of personal reflection (Aukes et al. 2007) [19]. Seeleman et al. (2014) [18] adjusted the GRAS to assess reflection ability as part of cultural competence. We shortened the adjusted score into 10 items. All 10 items score 1 to 5 and together make up the cultural competence (CC) GRAS-score between 10 and 50, with higher scores indicating higher reflection ability
Fig. 3Overall median pre and post-test scores within each domain (N = 35)
Differences between median pre- and post-score tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Median scores for knowledge, attitude, skills and self-perceived cultural competence within each country
| Greece ( | Netherlands ( | UK ( | Between Country differences | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | ||||
| Median [IQR] | 16 [14–18] | 19 [17–20] | 20 [17–21] | 22 [20–22] | 20 [16.5–22] | 23 [21–24] | 0.018* | 0.001** | |||
| Median [IQR] | 7 [6–9] | 7 [6–9] | 0.942 | 7 [6–10] | 9 [7–10] | 0.221 | 8 [7.5–9] | 11 [9.5–11] | 0.472 | 0.001** | |
| Median [IQR] | 6 [4–7] | 5 [4–8] | 0.156 | 4 [4–6] | 6 [5–7] | 4 [3–6] | 6 [5–7.5] | 0.450 | 0.787 | ||
| Median [IQR] | 26 [19.5–30.5] | 28 [22–33] | 0.057 | 25 [21–30] | 28 [24–32] | 0.234 | 30 [28–30.5] | 32 [30.5–33.5] | 0.068 | 0.259 | 0.169 |
Differences between median pre- and post-test score within each country tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Differences between pre- and post-test scores between countries tested using Kruskall Wallis test
IQR interquartile range
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Pre and post-test scores within each sub-domain for each country
| Greece ( | Netherlands ( | UK ( | Overall pre-post | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post) | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |||||
| Medical aspects (max score 12) | 6.5 [5–8.25] | 9.0 [7–10] | 9 [6–11] | 10 [10–11] | 8 [4–10] | 11 [10–11.5] | ||||
| Interpretation services (max score 5) | 1.5 [1–2] | 2 [1–2.5] | 1 [1–2] | 2 [1–2] | 2.5 [1.3–4.5] | 2.5 [2–3] | ||||
| National legislation (max score 3) | 2 [2–3] | 2 [2–3] | 2 [2–3] | 2 [2–3] | 2 [2–3] | 3 [2.5–3] | ||||
| Ethnic minority patients (max score 8) | 7 [6–7] | 7 [6–7] | 7 [6–8] | 7 [7–8] | 8 [7–8] | 7 [6–8] | ||||
| I respect her choice to become pregnant | 52.2% | 65.2% | 42.9% | 57.1% | 40.0% | 100% | ||||
| I understand why scheduled appointments are hard | 56.5% | 73.9% | 85.7% | 71.4% | 40.0% | 100% | ||||
| I feel irritated when she fails to attend twice c | 4.3% | 4.3% | 71.4% | 28.6% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| I cannot understand why she would bring a child into the world in her situation c | 0% | 0% | 14.3% | 14.3% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| I feel empathy for her | 4.3% | 8.7% | 42.9% | 57.1% | 60.0% | 100% | ||||
| I’m worried about her | 73.9% | 82.6% | 100% | 100% | 80.0% | 100% | ||||
| I’m worried about her child | 56.5% | 52.2% | 100% | 85.7% | 80.0% | 100% | ||||
| I feel desperate as I have no idea how to help c | 4.3% | 4.3% | 28.6% | 0% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| I’m glad I will be able to help her | 56.5% | 52.2% | 28.6% | 85.7% | 80.0% | 100% | ||||
| I’m considering informing child protection c | 39.1% | 47.8% | 0% | 0% | 20.0% | 20.0% | ||||
| I feel I need to consult more experienced colleagues | 69.6% | 43.5% | 42.9% | 42.9% | 60.0% | 60.0% | ||||
| I will end my care as usual in my country c | 8.7% | 8.7% | 57.1% | 42.9% | 20.0% | 20.0% | ||||
| I will approach different organisations for support | 78.3% | 73.9% | 57.1% | 85.7% | 20.0% | 60.0% | ||||
| Discuss pros and cons of government accommodation | 43.5% | 47.8% | 57.1% | 71.4% | 60.0% | 60.0% | ||||
| Write to the government requesting stay in current shelter until postnatal visits complete | 26.1% | 21.7% | 0% | 14.3% | 20.0% | 20.0% | ||||
| Concerns over victim of sexual violence | 52.2% | 56.5% | 42.9% | 57.1% | 20.0% | 60.0% | ||||
| Inform General Practitioner (GP) and health visitor over medical and mental health risk concerns | 56.5% | 69.6% | 71.4% | 100% | 80.0% | 100% | ||||
| Concerns over Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) | 13% | 30.4% | 42.9% | 42.9% | 0% | 40% | ||||
| No partner so contraception not discussed c | 4.3% | 4.3% | 14.3% | 14.3% | 0% | 0% | ||||
| Inform of relevant social and other care | 82.6% | 87.0% | 57.1% | 100% | 60% | 100% | ||||
| | 3 [2.75–3] | 4 [3–4] | 3 [3–4] | 4 [3–4] | 4 [4–4.5] | 4 [4–5] | ||||
| handling cultural differences | 4 [3–5] | 4 [3–5] | 3 [3–4] | 4 [3–4] | 4 [3–4] | 4 [4–4] | ||||
| discuss (sexual) violence | 3 [2.5–4] | 3 [3–4] | 3 [2–4] | 4 [3–4] | 4 [3–4] | 3 [3–4] | ||||
| ask about FGM | 3 [2–4] | 3 [2–4] | 4 [3–4] | 4 [3.5–4] | 4 [4–5] | 4 [4–4] | ||||
| manage consequences of FGM | 3 [2–4] | 3.5 [2–4] | 4 [3–4] | 4 [3–4] | 4 [3–4] | 4 [4–4] | ||||
| provide health promotion to migrants | 4 [3–5] | 4 [3.75–5] | 3 [2–4] | 3 [3–4] | 4 [3.5–4] | 4 [4–4.5] | ||||
| legal and procedural aspects around migration status | 2 [1–3] | 3 [2–3] | 1 [1–2] | 2 [1–3] | 2 [1.5–2.5] | 4 [3–4] | ||||
| refer to social care | 4 [3–4] | 4 [4–5] | 3 [3–5] | 4 [4–4] | 4 [4–4.5] | 4 [4–5] | ||||
a - domains negatively scoring - so a decrease in score is desired
b - McNemar Test used for dichotomous variables to test for differences between pre- and post-test proportions within each country and overall
c - Differences between median pre- and post-score within each country and overall tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank test
IQR Interquartile range
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001