Despite growing recognition of neglectful, abusive, and disrespectful treatment of women during childbirth in health facilities, there is no consensus at a global level on how these occurrences are ...defined and measured. This mixed-methods systematic review aims to synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence on the mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities to inform the development of an evidence-based typology of the phenomenon.
We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases and grey literature using a predetermined search strategy to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies on the mistreatment of women during childbirth across all geographical and income-level settings. We used a thematic synthesis approach to synthesize the qualitative evidence and assessed the confidence in the qualitative review findings using the CERQual approach. In total, 65 studies were included from 34 countries. Qualitative findings were organized under seven domains: (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual abuse, (3) verbal abuse, (4) stigma and discrimination, (5) failure to meet professional standards of care, (6) poor rapport between women and providers, and (7) health system conditions and constraints. Due to high heterogeneity of the quantitative data, we were unable to conduct a meta-analysis; instead, we present descriptions of study characteristics, outcome measures, and results. Additional themes identified in the quantitative studies are integrated into the typology.
This systematic review presents a comprehensive, evidence-based typology of the mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities, and demonstrates that mistreatment can occur at the level of interaction between the woman and provider, as well as through systemic failures at the health facility and health system levels. We propose this typology be adopted to describe the phenomenon and be used to develop measurement tools and inform future research, programs, and interventions.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
In 2018, three independent reports were published, emphasizing the need for attention to, and improvements in, quality of care to achieve effective universal health coverage. A key aspect of high ...quality health care and health systems is that they are person-centred, a characteristic that is at the same time intrinsically important (all individuals have the right to be treated with dignity and respect) and instrumentally important (person-centred care is associated with improved health-care utilization and health outcomes). Following calls to make 2019 a year of action, we provide guidance to policy-makers, researchers and implementers on how they can take on the task of measuring person-centred care. Theoretically, measures of person-centred care allow quality improvement efforts to be evaluated and ensure that health systems are accountable to those they aim to serve. However, in practice, the utility of these measures is limited by lack of clarity and precision in designing and by using measures for different aspects of person-centeredness. We discuss the distinction between two broad categories of measures of patient-centred care: patient experience and patient satisfaction. We frame our discussion of these measures around three key questions: (i) how will the results of this measure be used?; (ii) how will patient subjectivity be accounted for?; and (iii) is this measure validated or tested? By addressing these issues during the design phase, researchers will increase the usability of their measures.
China has witnessed a rapid increase of cesarean section (CS) rates in recent years. Several non-clinical factors have been cited as contributing to this trend including maternal request and ...perceived convenience. We aimed to assess preferences for mode of delivery and reasons for preferences for CS in China to inform the development of future interventions to mitigate unnecessary CSs, which are those performed in the absence of medical indications.
We conducted a mixed-methods systematic review and included longitudinal, cross-sectional, and qualitative studies in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan that investigated preferences for mode of delivery among women and family members and health professionals, and the reasons underlying such preferences. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, POPLINE, PsycINFO, Global Health Library, and one Chinese database (CNKI) using a combination of the key terms 'caesarean section', 'preference', 'choice', 'knowledge', 'attitude', 'culture', 'non-clinical factors', and 'health professionals-patient relations' between 1990 and 2018 without language restriction. Meta-analysis of quantitative studies and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies were applied. We included 66 studies in this analysis: 47 quantitative and 19 qualitative. For the index pregnancy, the pooled proportions of preference for CS reported by women in longitudinal studies were 14% in early or middle pregnancy (95% CI 12%-17%) and 21% in late pregnancy (95% CI 15%-26%). In cross-sectional studies, the proportions were 17% in early or middle pregnancy (95% CI 14%-20%), 22% in late pregnancy (95% CI 18%-25%), and 30% postpartum (95% CI 19%-40%). Women's preferences for CS were found to rise as pregnancy progressed (preference change across longitudinal studies: mean difference 7%, 95% CI 1%-13%). One longitudinal study reported that the preference for CS among women's partners increased from 8% in late pregnancy to 17% in the immediate postpartum period. In addition, 18 quantitative studies revealed that some pregnant women, ranging from 4% to 34%, did not have a straightforward preference for a mode of delivery, even in late pregnancy. The qualitative meta-synthesis found that women's perceptions of CS as preferable were based on prioritising the baby's and woman's health and appeared to intensify through interactions with the health system. Women valued the convenience of bypassing labour because of fear of pain, antagonistic relations with providers, and beliefs of deteriorating quality of care during labour and vaginal birth, fostering the feeling that CS was the safest option. Health professionals' preference for CS was influenced by financial drivers and malpractice fears. This review has some limitations, including high heterogeneity (despite subgroup and sensitivity analysis) in the quantitative analysis, and the potential for over-reporting of women's preferences for CS in the qualitative synthesis (due to some included studies only including women who requested CS).
Despite a minority of women expressing a preference for CS, individual, health system, and socio-cultural factors converge, contributing to a high CS rate in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. In order to reduce unnecessary CSs, interventions need to address all these non-clinical factors and concerns.
Prospero CRD42016036596.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Continuous support for women during childbirth Bohren, Meghan A; Hofmeyr, G Justus; Sakala, Carol ...
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
07/2017, Letnik:
2017, Številka:
8
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Background
Historically, women have generally been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has often become the ...exception rather than the routine.
Objectives
The primary objective was to assess the effects, on women and their babies, of continuous, one‐to‐one intrapartum support compared with usual care, in any setting. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by:
1. Routine practices and policies in the birth environment that may affect a woman's autonomy, freedom of movement and ability to cope with labour, including: policies about the presence of support people of the woman's own choosing; epidural analgesia; and continuous electronic fetal monitoring.
2. The provider's relationship to the woman and to the facility: staff member of the facility (and thus has additional loyalties or responsibilities); not a staff member and not part of the woman's social network (present solely for the purpose of providing continuous support, e.g. a doula); or a person chosen by the woman from family members and friends;
3. Timing of onset (early or later in labour);
4. Model of support (support provided only around the time of childbirth or extended to include support during the antenatal and postpartum periods);
5. Country income level (high‐income compared to low‐ and middle‐income).
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 June 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Selection criteria
All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials, cluster‐randomised trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care. Quasi‐randomised and cross‐over designs were not eligible for inclusion.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We sought additional information from the trial authors. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
Main results
We included a total of 27 trials, and 26 trials involving 15,858 women provided usable outcome data for analysis. These trials were conducted in 17 different countries: 13 trials were conducted in high‐income settings; 13 trials in middle‐income settings; and no studies in low‐income settings. Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.12; 21 trials, 14,369 women; low‐quality evidence) and less likely to report negative ratings of or feelings about their childbirth experience (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79; 11 trials, 11,133 women; low‐quality evidence) and to use any intrapartum analgesia (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96; 15 trials, 12,433 women). In addition, their labours were shorter (MD ‐0.69 hours, 95% CI ‐1.04 to ‐0.34; 13 trials, 5429 women; low‐quality evidence), they were less likely to have a caesarean birth (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.88; 24 trials, 15,347 women; low‐quality evidence) or instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96; 19 trials, 14,118 women), regional analgesia (average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 9 trials, 11,444 women), or a baby with a low five‐minute Apgar score (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85; 14 trials, 12,615 women). Data from two trials for postpartum depression were not combined due to differences in women, hospitals and care providers included; both trials found fewer women developed depressive symptomatology if they had been supported in birth, although this may have been a chance result in one of the studies (low‐quality evidence). There was no apparent impact on other intrapartum interventions, maternal or neonatal complications, such as admission to special care nursery (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.25; 7 trials, 8897 women; low‐quality evidence), and exclusive or any breastfeeding at any time point (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; 4 trials, 5584 women; low‐quality evidence).
Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective at reducing caesarean birth, when the provider was present in a doula role, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. Continuous labour support in settings where women were not permitted to have companions of their choosing with them in labour, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous vaginal birth and lower likelihood of a caesarean birth. Subgroup analysis of trials conducted in high‐income compared with trials in middle‐income countries suggests that continuous labour support offers similar benefits to women and babies for most outcomes, with the exception of caesarean birth, where studies from middle‐income countries showed a larger reduction in caesarean birth. No conclusions could be drawn about low‐income settings, electronic fetal monitoring, the timing of onset of continuous support or model of support.
Risk of bias varied in included studies: no study clearly blinded women and personnel; only one study sufficiently blinded outcome assessors. All other domains were of varying degrees of risk of bias. The quality of evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding in studies and other limitations in study designs, inconsistency, or imprecision of effect estimates.
Authors' conclusions
Continuous support during labour may improve outcomes for women and infants, including increased spontaneous vaginal birth, shorter duration of labour, and decreased caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth, use of any analgesia, use of regional analgesia, low five‐minute Apgar score and negative feelings about childbirth experiences. We found no evidence of harms of continuous labour support. Subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution, and considered as exploratory and hypothesis‐generating, but evidence suggests continuous support with certain provider characteristics, in settings where epidural analgesia was not routinely available, in settings where women were not permitted to have companions of their choosing in labour, and in middle‐income country settings, may have a favourable impact on outcomes such as caesarean birth. Future research on continuous support during labour could focus on longer‐term outcomes (breastfeeding, mother‐infant interactions, postpartum depression, self‐esteem, difficulty mothering) and include more woman‐centred outcomes in low‐income settings.
Caesarean sections (CS) continue to increase worldwide. Multiple and complex factors are contributing to the increase, including non-clinical factors related to individual women, families and their ...interactions with health providers. This global qualitative evidence synthesis explores women's preferences for mode of birth and factors underlying preferences for CS.
Systematic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were conducted in December 2016 and updated in May 2019 and February 2021. Studies conducted across all resource settings were eligible for inclusion, except those from China and Taiwan which have been reported in a companion publication. Phenomena of interest were opinions, views and perspectives of women regarding preferences for mode of birth, attributes of CS, societal and cultural beliefs about modes of birth, and right to choose mode of birth. Thematic synthesis of data was conducted. Confidence in findings was assessed using GRADE-CERQual.
We included 52 studies, from 28 countries, encompassing the views and perspectives of pregnant women, non-pregnant women, women with previous CS, postpartum women, and women's partners. Most of the studies were conducted in high-income countries and published between 2011 and 2021. Factors underlying women preferences for CS had to do mainly with strong fear of pain and injuries to the mother and child during labour or birth (High confidence), uncertainty regarding vaginal birth (High confidence), and positive views or perceived advantages of CS (High confidence). Women who preferred CS expressed resoluteness about it, but there were also many women who had a clear preference for vaginal birth and those who even developed strategies to keep their birth plans in environments that were not supportive of vaginal births (High confidence). The findings also identified that social, cultural and personal factors as well as attributes related to health systems impact on the reasons underlying women preferences for various modes of birth (High confidence).
A wide variety of factors underlie women's preferences for CS in the absence of medical indications. Major factors contributing to perceptions of CS as preferable include fear of pain, uncertainty with vaginal birth and positive views on CS. Interventions need to address these factors to reduce unnecessary CS.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Reproductive coercion and abuse is a major public health issue, with significant effects on the health and well-being of women. Reproductive coercion and abuse includes any form of behaviour that ...intentionally controls another person's reproductive choices. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis is to explore women's experiences of reproductive coercion and abuse globally, to broaden understanding of the different ways reproductive coercion and abuse is perpetrated, perceived and experienced across settings and socio-cultural contexts.
We searched Medline, CINAHL and Embase for eligible studies from inception to 25th February 2021. Primary studies with a qualitative study design that focused on the experiences and perceptions of women who have encountered reproductive coercion and abuse were eligible for inclusion. Titles and abstracts, and full texts were screened by independent reviewers. We extracted data from included studies using a form designed for this synthesis and assessed methodological limitations using CASP. We used Thomas and Harden's thematic analysis approach to analyse and synthesise the evidence, and the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in review findings.
We included 33 studies from twelve countries in South Asia, the Asia Pacific, North America, South America, Africa and Europe. Most studies used in-depth interviews and focus group discussions to discuss women's experiences of reproductive coercion and abuse. Reproductive coercion and abuse manifested in a range of behaviours including control of pregnancy outcome, pregnancy pressure or contraceptive sabotage. There were a range of reasons cited for reproductive coercion and abuse, including control of women, rigid gender roles, social inequalities and family pressure. Women's different responses to reproductive coercion and abuse included using covert contraception and feelings of distress, anger and trauma. Across contexts, perpetration and experiences of reproductive coercion and abuse were influenced by different factors including son preferences and social exclusion.
We reflect on the importance of socio-cultural factors in understanding the phenomenon of reproductive coercion and abuse and how it affects women, as well as how the mechanisms of power and control at both individual and societal levels work to perpetuate the incidence of reproductive coercion and abuse against women.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE working ...group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) relevance, (3) coherence and (4) adequacy of data. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on CERQual's coherence component.
We developed the coherence component by searching the literature for definitions, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We tested the CERQual coherence component within several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the current definition and principles for application.
When applying CERQual, we define coherence as how clear and cogent the fit is between the data from the primary studies and a review finding that synthesises that data. In this paper, we describe the coherence component and its rationale and offer guidance on how to assess coherence in the context of a review finding as part of the CERQual approach. This guidance outlines the information required to assess coherence, the steps that need to be taken to assess coherence and examples of coherence assessments.
This paper provides guidance for review authors and others on undertaking an assessment of coherence in the context of the CERQual approach. We suggest that threats to coherence may arise when the data supporting a review finding are contradictory, ambiguous or incomplete or where competing theories exist that could be used to synthesise the data. We expect the CERQual approach, and its individual components, to develop further as our experiences with the practical implementation of the approach increase.
High-quality obstetric delivery in a health facility reduces maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. This systematic review synthesizes qualitative evidence related to the facilitators and ...barriers to delivering at health facilities in low- and middle-income countries. We aim to provide a useful framework for better understanding how various factors influence the decision-making process and the ultimate location of delivery at a facility or elsewhere. We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL and gray literature databases. Study quality was evaluated using the CASP checklist. The confidence in the findings was assessed using the CERQual method. Thirty-four studies from 17 countries were included. Findings were organized under four broad themes: (1) perceptions of pregnancy and childbirth; (2) influence of sociocultural context and care experiences; (3) resource availability and access; (4) perceptions of quality of care. Key barriers to facility-based delivery include traditional and familial influences, distance to the facility, cost of delivery, and low perceived quality of care and fear of discrimination during facility-based delivery. The emphasis placed on increasing facility-based deliveries by public health entities has led women and their families to believe that childbirth has become medicalized and dehumanized. When faced with the prospect of facility birth, women in low- and middle-income countries may fear various undesirable procedures, and may prefer to deliver at home with a traditional birth attendant. Given the abundant reports of disrespectful and abusive obstetric care highlighted by this synthesis, future research should focus on achieving respectful, non-abusive, and high-quality obstetric care for all women. Funding for this project was provided by The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization.
Background
Labour companionship refers to support provided to a woman during labour and childbirth, and may be provided by a partner, family member, friend, doula or healthcare professional. A ...Cochrane systematic review of interventions by Bohren and colleagues, concluded that having a labour companion improves outcomes for women and babies. The presence of a labour companion is therefore regarded as an important aspect of improving quality of care during labour and childbirth; however implementation of the intervention is not universal. Implementation of labour companionship may be hampered by limited understanding of factors affecting successful implementation across contexts.
Objectives
The objectives of the review were to describe and explore the perceptions and experiences of women, partners, community members, healthcare providers and administrators, and other key stakeholders regarding labour companionship; to identify factors affecting successful implementation and sustainability of labour companionship; and to explore how the findings of this review can enhance understanding of the related Cochrane systematic review of interventions.
Search methods
We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and POPLINE K4Health databases for eligible studies from inception to 9 September 2018. There were no language, date or geographic restrictions.
Selection criteria
We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; focused on women’s, partners’, family members’, doulas', providers', or other relevant stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of labour companionship; and were from any type of health facility in any setting globally.
Data collection and analysis
We used a thematic analysis approach for data extraction and synthesis, and assessed the confidence in the findings using the GRADE‐CERQual approach. We used two approaches to integrate qualitative findings with the intervention review findings. We used a logic model to theorise links between elements of the intervention and health and well‐being outcomes. We also used a matrix model to compare features of labour companionship identified as important in the qualitative evidence synthesis with the interventions included in the intervention review.
Main results
We found 51 studies (52 papers), mostly from high‐income countries and mostly describing women's perspectives. We assessed our level of confidence in each finding using the GRADE‐CERQual approach. We had high or moderate confidence in many of our findings. Where we only had low or very low confidence in a finding, we have indicated this.
Labour companions supported women in four different ways. Companions gave informational support by providing information about childbirth, bridging communication gaps between health workers and women, and facilitating non‐pharmacological pain relief. Companions were advocates, which means they spoke up in support of the woman. Companions provided practical support, including encouraging women to move around, providing massage, and holding her hand. Finally, companions gave emotional support, using praise and reassurance to help women feel in control and confident, and providing a continuous physical presence.
Women who wanted a companion present during labour and childbirth needed this person to be compassionate and trustworthy. Companionship helped women to have a positive birth experience. Women without a companion could perceive this as a negative birth experience. Women had mixed perspectives about wanting to have a male partner present (low confidence). Generally, men who were labour companions felt that their presence made a positive impact on both themselves (low confidence) and on the relationship with their partner and baby (low confidence), although some felt anxious witnessing labour pain (low confidence). Some male partners felt that they were not well integrated into the care team or decision‐making.
Doulas often met with women before birth to build rapport and manage expectations. Women could develop close bonds with their doulas (low confidence). Foreign‐born women in high‐income settings may appreciate support from community‐based doulas to receive culturally‐competent care (low confidence).
Factors affecting implementation included health workers and women not recognising the benefits of companionship, lack of space and privacy, and fearing increased risk of infection (low confidence). Changing policies to allow companionship and addressing gaps between policy and practice were thought to be important (low confidence). Some providers were resistant to or not well trained on how to use companions, and this could lead to conflict. Lay companions were often not integrated into antenatal care, which may cause frustration (low confidence).
We compared our findings from this synthesis to the companionship programmes/approaches assessed in Bohren’s review of effectiveness. We found that most of these programmes did not appear to address these key features of labour companionship.
Authors' conclusions
We have high or moderate confidence in the evidence contributing to several of these review findings. Further research, especially in low‐ and middle‐income settings and with different cadres of healthcare providers, could strengthen the evidence for low‐ or very low‐confidence findings. Ahead of implementation of labour companionship, researchers and programmers should consider factors that may affect implementation, including training content and timing for providers, women and companions; physical structure of the labour ward; specifying clear roles for companions and providers; integration of companions; and measuring the impact of companionship on women’s experiences of care. Implementation research or studies conducted on labour companionship should include a qualitative component to evaluate the process and context of implementation, in order to better interpret results and share findings across contexts.
Transforming intrapartum care: Respectful maternity care Bohren, Meghan A.; Tunçalp, Özge; Miller, Suellen
Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology,
August 2020, 2020-Aug, 2020-08-00, 20200801, Letnik:
67
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Respectful maternity care is recommended by the World Health Organization and refers to care that maintains dignity, privacy, confidentiality, ensures freedom from harm and mistreatment, and enables ...informed choice and continuous support during labour and childbirth. In this paper, we review the evidence of respectful maternity care and discuss considerations for professional practice for health care providers. While there is limited evidence on what type of interventions can improve respectful maternity care, promising skills development for providers has included training on values, transforming attitudes, and interpersonal communication. Within a health facility, enabling environments may be created by setting up quality improvement teams, monitoring experiences of poor treatment, mentorship, and improved working conditions for staff. In order to provide respectful care, health facilities and health systems must be structured in a way that supports and respects providers, and ensures adequate infrastructure and organisation of the maternity ward.
•Respectful maternity care is recommended by the World Health Organization.•Maintain dignity, privacy, informed choice, emotional support, and freedom from harm.•Train providers on values, transforming attitudes, and interpersonal communication.•Enabling environments: adequate infrastructure and organisation.
PDF
