Background: The most common reason for caesarean section (CS) is repeat CS following previous CS. Vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) rates vary widely in different healthcare settings and countries. Obtaining deeper knowledge of clinicians’ views on VBAC can help in understanding the factors of importance for increasing VBAC rates. Interview studies with clinicians and women in three countries with high VBAC rates (Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands) and three countries with low VBAC rates (Ireland, Italy and Germany) are part of ‘OptiBIRTH’, an ongoing research project. The study reported here is based on interviews in high VBAC countries. The aim of the study was to investigate the views of clinicians working in countries with high VBAC rates on factors of importance for improving VBAC rates. Methods: Individual (face-to-face or telephone) interviews and focus group interviews with clinicians (in different maternity care settings) in three countries with high VBAC rates were conducted during 2012–2013. In total, 44 clinicians participated: 26 midwives and 18 obstetricians. Five central questions about VBAC were used and interviews were analysed using content analysis. The analysis was performed in each country in the native language and then translated into English. All data were then analysed together and final categories were validated in each country. Results: The findings are presented in four main categories with subcategories. First, a common approach is needed, including: feeling confident with VBAC, considering VBAC as the first alternative, communicating well, working in a team, working in accordance with a model and making agreements with the woman. Second, obstetricians need to make the final decision on the mode of delivery while involving women in counselling towards VBAC. Third, a woman who has a previous CS has a similar need for support as other labouring women, but with some extra precautions and additional recommendations for her care. Finally, clinicians should help strengthen women’s trust in VBAC, including building their trust in giving birth vaginally, recognising that giving birth naturally is an empowering experience for women, alleviating fear and offering extra visits to discuss the previous CS, and joining with the woman in a dialogue while leaving the decision about the mode of birth open. Conclusions: This study shows that, according to midwives and obstetricians from countries with high VBAC rates, the important factors for improving the VBAC rate are related to the structure of the maternity care system in the country, to the cooperation between midwives and obstetricians, and to the care offered during pregnancy and birth. More research on clinicians’ perspectives is needed from countries with low, as well as high, VBAC rates.
MULTIFILE
Background Psychological aspects of labor and birth have received little attention within maternity care service planning or clinical practice. The aim of this paper is to propose a model demonstrating how neurohormonal processes, in particular oxytocinergic mechanisms, not only control the physiological aspects of labor and birth, but also contribute to the subjective psychological experiences of birth. In addition, sensory information from the uterus as well as the external environment might influence these neurohormonal processes thereby influencing the progress of labor and the experience of birth. Methodology In this new model of childbirth, we integrated the findings from two previous systematic reviews, one on maternal plasma levels of oxytocin during physiological childbirth and one meta-synthesis of women´s subjective experiences of physiological childbirth. Findings The neurobiological processes induced by the release of endogenous oxytocin during birth influence maternal behaviour and feelings in connection with birth in order to facilitate birth. The psychological experiences during birth may promote an optimal transition to motherhood. The spontaneous altered state of consciousness, that some women experience, may well be a hallmark of physiological childbirth in humans. The data also highlights the crucial role of one-to-one support during labor and birth. The physiological importance of social support to reduce labor stress and pain necessitates a reconsideration of many aspects of modern maternity care. Conclusion By listening to women’s experiences and by observing women during childbirth, factors that contribute to an optimized process of labor, such as the mothers’ wellbeing and feelings of safety, may be identified. These observations support the integrative role of endogenous oxytocin in coordinating the neuroendocrine, psychological and physiological aspects of labor and birth, including oxytocin mediated. decrease of pain, fear and stress, support the need for midwifery one-to-one support in labour as well as the need for maternity care that optimizes the function of these neuroendocrine processes even when birth interventions are used. Women and their partners would benefit from understanding the crucial role that endogenous oxytocin plays in the psychological and neuroendocrinological process of labor.
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.
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.
