Objective: Gaining too much or too little weight in pregnancy (according to Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines) negatively affects both mother and child, but many women find it difficult to manage their gestational weight gain (GWG). Here we describe the use of the intervention mapping protocol to design ‘Come On!’, an intervention to promote adequate GWG among healthy pregnant women. Design: We used the six steps of intervention mapping: (i) needs assessment; (ii) formulation of change objectives; (iii) selection of theory-based methods and practical strategies; (iv) development of the intervention programme; (v) development of an adoption and implementation plan; and (vi) development of an evaluation plan. A consortium of users and related professionals guided the process of development. Results: As a result of the needs assessment, two goals for the intervention were formulated: (i) helping healthy pregnant women to stay within the IOM guidelines for GWG; and (ii) getting midwives to adequately support the efforts of healthy pregnant women to gain weight within the IOM guidelines. To reach these goals, change objectives and determinants influencing the change objectives were formulated. Theories used were the Transtheoretical Model, Social Cognitive Theory and the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Practical strategies to use the theories were the foundation for the development of ‘Come On!’, a comprehensive programme that included a tailored Internet programme for pregnant women, training for midwives, an information card for midwives, and a scheduled discussion between the midwife and the pregnant woman during pregnancy. The programme was pre-tested and evaluated in an effect study.
MULTIFILE
At the beginning of the twenty first century obesity entered Dutch maternity care as a ‘new illness’ challenging maternity care professionals in providing optimal care for women with higher BMI’s. International research revealed that obese women had more perinatal problems than normal weight women. However, the effect of higher BMIs on perinatal outcomes had never been studied in women eligible for midwife-led primary care at the outset of their pregnancy. In the context of the Dutch maternity care system, it was not clear if obesity should be treated as a high-risk situation always requiring obstetrician-led care or as a condition that may lead to problems that could be detected in a timely manner in midwife-led care using the usual risk assessment tools. With the increased attention on obesity in maternity care there was also increased interest in GWG. Regarding GWG in the Netherlands, the effect of insufficient or excessive GWG on perinatal outcomes had never been studied and there were no validated guidelines for GWG. A midwife’s care for the individual woman in the context of the Dutch maternity care system - characterised by ‘midwife-led care if possible, obstetrician-led care if needed’ - is hampered by the lack of national multidisciplinary consensus regarding obesity and weight gain. Obesity has not yet been included in the OIL and local protocols contain varying recommendations. To enable sound clinical decisions and to offer optimal individual care for pregnant women in the Netherlands more insights in weight and weight gain in relation to perinatal outcomes are required. With this thesis the author intends to contribute to the body of knowledge on weight and weight gain to enhance optimal midwife-led primary care for the individual woman and to guide midwives’ clinical decision-making.
DOCUMENT
Background: Research in maternity care is often conducted in mixed low and high-risk or solely high-risk populations. This limits generalizability to the low-risk population of pregnant women receiving care from Dutch midwives. To address this limitation, 24 midwifery practices in the Netherlands bring together routinely collected data from medical records of pregnant women and their offspring in the VeCaS database. This database offers possibilities for research of physiological pregnancy and childbirth. This study explores if the pregnant women in VeCaS are a representative sample for the national population of women who receive primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands. Methods: In VeCaS we selected a low risk population in midwife-led care who gave birth in 2015. We compared population characteristics and birth outcomes in this study cohort with a similarly defined national cohort, using Chi Square and two side t-test statistics. Additionally, we describe some birth outcomes and lifestyle factors. Results: Midwifery practices contributing to VeCaS are spread over the Netherlands, although the western region is underrepresented. For population characteristics, the VeCaS cohort is similar to the national cohort in maternal age (mean 30.4 years) and parity (nulliparous women: 47.1% versus 45.9%). Less often, women in the VeCaS cohort have a non-Dutch background (15.7% vs 24.4%), a higher SES (9.9% vs 23.7%) and live in an urbanised surrounding (4.9% vs 24.8%). Birth outcomes were similar to the national cohort, most women gave birth at term (94.9% vs 94.5% between 37 + 0–41+ 6 weeks), started labour spontaneously (74.5% vs 75.5%) and had a spontaneous vaginal birth (77.4% vs 77.6%), 16.9% had a home birth. Furthermore, 61.1% had a normal pre-pregnancy BMI, and 81.0% did not smoke in pregnancy. Conclusions: The VeCaS database contains data of a population that is mostly comparable to the national population in primary midwife-led care in the Netherlands. Therefore, the VeCaS database is suitable for research in a healthy pregnant population and is valuable to improve knowledge of the physiological course of pregnancy and birth. Representativeness of maternal characteristics may be improved by including midwifery practices from the urbanised western region in the Netherlands.
DOCUMENT
Vulnerable pregnant women are an important and complex theme in daily practice of birth care professionals. Vulnerability is an important risk factor for maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Providing care for these women is often complex. First, because it is not always easy to identify vulnerability. Secondly, vulnerable women more often cancel their appointments with midwives and finally, many professionals are involved while they do not always know each other. Even though professionals are aware of the risks of vulnerability for future mothers and their (unborn) children and the complexity of care for these women, there is no international definition for ‘vulnerable pregnancies’. Therefore, we start this project with defining a mutual definition of vulnerability during pregnancy. In current projects of Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences (RUAS) we define a vulnerable pregnant woman as: a pregnant woman facing psychopathology, psychosocial problems, and/or substance abuse combined with lack of individual and/or social resources (low socioeconomic status, low educational level, limited social network). In the Netherlands, care for vulnerable pregnant women is fragmented and therefore it is unclear for birth care professionals which interventions are available and effective. Therefore, Dutch midwives are convinced that exchanging knowledge and best practices concerning vulnerable pregnancies between midwifery practices throughout Europe could enhance their knowledge and provide midwives (SMB partners in this project) with tools to improve care for vulnerable pregnant women. The aim of this project is to exchange knowledge and best practices concerning vulnerable pregnancies between midwifery practices in several European countries, in order to improve knowledge and skills of midwives. As a result, guidelines will be developed in order to exchange selected best practices which enable midwives to implement this knowledge in their own context. This contributes to improving care for vulnerable pregnant women throughout Europe.
