Michael Wilkinson1, Sana Usman2, Helen Barton2, Christoph C Lees1,2,3. 1. Imperial College London South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ UK. 2. Centre for Fetal Care, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust Du Cane Road London W12 0HS UK. 3. Department of Development and Regeneration KU Leuven UZ Leuven, Gasthuisberg campus, Herestraat Leuven 49, 3000 Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is increasingly used in labour; however, little data exist on attitudes to its use. We sought to analyse and compare the views of pregnant women, midwives, and a women's panel on the value and use of ultrasound in labour. METHODS: Focus groups involving a short presentation on ultrasound, questionnaire, and a question and answer session were held with groups of pregnant women, midwives at 2 inner-city maternity units, and a RCOG online Women's Panel. Data were collected on attitudes to vaginal examination, ultrasound, predicting Caesarean section, and the utility of a digital representation of labour. RESULTS: Twenty one midwives and 29 service users (19 pregnant women and 10 women's panel members) participated. Significantly more service users saw positive value in intrapartum ultrasound (P = 0.0005) and predicting Caesarean section (P = 0.03) than midwives. The majority of both groups - 72% (20/29) and 62% (13/21), respectively - thought women would want a digital representation of their labour, with the most popular format being on a mobile phone (56%, 20/36). CONCLUSIONS: Service users were most and midwives least positive about ultrasound versus vaginal examination, indicating divergence between midwives' perspective of women's need to understand risk and desire to know about their labour. Women found the non-intrusive nature and accuracy of ultrasound valuable while midwives were concerned about de-skilling and medicalisation of birth. All groups felt a graphical representation of labour on a device would be helpful.
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is increasingly used in labour; however, little data exist on attitudes to its use. We sought to analyse and compare the views of pregnant women, midwives, and a women's panel on the value and use of ultrasound in labour. METHODS: Focus groups involving a short presentation on ultrasound, questionnaire, and a question and answer session were held with groups of pregnant women, midwives at 2 inner-city maternity units, and a RCOG online Women's Panel. Data were collected on attitudes to vaginal examination, ultrasound, predicting Caesarean section, and the utility of a digital representation of labour. RESULTS: Twenty one midwives and 29 service users (19 pregnant women and 10 women's panel members) participated. Significantly more service users saw positive value in intrapartum ultrasound (P = 0.0005) and predicting Caesarean section (P = 0.03) than midwives. The majority of both groups - 72% (20/29) and 62% (13/21), respectively - thought women would want a digital representation of their labour, with the most popular format being on a mobile phone (56%, 20/36). CONCLUSIONS: Service users were most and midwives least positive about ultrasound versus vaginal examination, indicating divergence between midwives' perspective of women's need to understand risk and desire to know about their labour. Women found the non-intrusive nature and accuracy of ultrasound valuable while midwives were concerned about de-skilling and medicalisation of birth. All groups felt a graphical representation of labour on a device would be helpful.
Authors: T Ghi; T Eggebø; C Lees; K Kalache; P Rozenberg; A Youssef; L J Salomon; B Tutschek Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Sana Usman; Helen Barton; Charlotte Wilhelm-Benartzi; Christoph C Lees Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: P G Seaward; M E Hannah; T L Myhr; D Farine; A Ohlsson; E E Wang; E Hodnett; K Haque; J A Weston; G Ohel Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Tørbjorn Moe Eggebø; Charlotte Wilhelm-Benartzi; Wassim A Hassan; Sana Usman; Kjell A Salvesen; Christoph C Lees Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 8.661