Article

Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?

Faculty of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Impact Factor: 3.86). 01/2005; 111(12):1388-93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00338.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare family physicians', obstetricians' and midwives' self-reported practices, attitudes and beliefs about central issues in childbirth.
Mail-out questionnaire. SETTING/POPULATION; All registered midwives in the province, and a sample of family physicians and obstetricians in a maternity care teaching hospital. Response rates: 91% (n = 50), 69% (n = 97) and 89% (n = 34), respectively.
A postal survey.
Twenty-three five-point Likert scale items (strongly agree to strongly disagree) addressing attitudes toward routine electronic fetal monitoring, induction of labour, epidural analgesia, episiotomy, doulas, vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBACs), birth centres, provision educational material, birth plans and caesarean section.
Cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters based on similar response to the questions. The 'MW' cluster consisted of 100% of midwives and 26% of the family physicians. The 'OB' cluster was composed of 79% of the obstetricians and 16% of the family physicians. The 'FP' cluster was composed of 58% the family physicians and 21% the obstetricians. Members of the 'OB' cluster more strongly believed that women had the right to request a caesarean section without maternal/fetal indications (P < 0.001), that epidurals early in labour were not associated with development of fetal malpositions (P < 0.001) and that increasing caesarean rates were a sign of improvement in obstetrics (P < 0.001). The 'OB' cluster members were more likely to say they would induce women as soon as possible after 41 3/7 weeks of gestation (P < 0.001) and were least likely to encourage the use of birth plans (P < 0.001). The 'MW' cluster's views were the opposite of the 'OBs' while the 'FP' cluster's views fell between the 'MW' and 'OB' clusters.
In our environment, obstetricians were the most attached to technology and interventions including caesarean section and inductions, midwives the least, while family physicians fell in the middle. While generalisations can be problematic, obstetricians and midwives generally follow a defined and different approach to maternity care. Family physicians are heterogeneous, sometimes practising more like midwives and sometimes more like obstetricians.

Full-text

Available from: Michael C Klein, May 29, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
156 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most studies on birth settings investigate the association between planned place of birth at the start of labor and birth outcomes and intervention rates. To optimize maternity care it also is important to pay attention to the entire process of pregnancy and childbirth. This study explores the association between the initial preferred place of birth and model of care, and the course of pregnancy and labor in low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands. As part of a Dutch prospective cohort study (2007-2011), we compared medical indications during pregnancy and birth outcomes of 576 women who initially preferred a home birth (n = 226), a midwife-led hospital birth (n = 168) or an obstetrician-led hospital birth (n = 182). Data were obtained by a questionnaire before 20 weeks of gestation and by medical records. Analyses were performed according to the initial preferred place of birth. Low-risk nulliparous women who preferred a home birth with midwife-led care were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician-led care (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.25-0.66). Preferring a birth with midwife-led care - both at home and in hospital - was associated with lower odds of induced labor (OR 0.51 95% CI 0.28-0.95 respectively OR 0.42 95% CI 0.21-0.85) and epidural analgesia (OR 0.32 95% CI 0.18-0.56 respectively OR 0.34 95% CI 0.19-0.62) compared to preferring a birth with obstetrician-led care. In addition, women who preferred a home birth were less likely to experience augmentation of labor (OR 0.54 95% CI 0.32-0.93) and narcotic analgesia (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.21-0.79) compared to women who preferred a birth with obstetrician-led care. We observed no significant association between preferred place of birth and mode of birth. Nulliparous women who initially preferred a home birth were less likely to be diagnosed with a medical indication during pregnancy. Women who initially preferred a birth with midwife-led care - both at home and in hospital - experienced lower rates of interventions during labor. Although some differences can be attributed to the model of care, we suggest that characteristics and attitudes of women themselves also play an important role.
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 12/2015; 15(1):455. DOI:10.1186/s12884-015-0455-x · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While international variations in overall cesarean delivery rates are well documented, less information is available for clinical sub-groups. Cesarean data presented by subgroups can be used to evaluate uptake of cesarean reduction policies or to monitor delivery practices for high and low risk pregnancies based on new scientific evidence. We studied differences and patterns in cesarean delivery rates by multiplicity and gestational age in Europe and the United States.
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 09/2014; 14(1):321. DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-14-321 · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Obstetricians and anesthesiologists may interpret medical evidence differently, which could potentially generate conflict and compromise patient care. We sought to identify the most important controversial topics involving obstetricians and anesthesiologists on the labour ward that had the potential to affect patient outcome. We conducted a consensus-building study based on the Delphi technique. A panel of experts comprised of obstetric anesthesiologists and obstetricians responded to a series of four parallel sequential questionnaires interspersed with feedback. The first round consisted of an open questionnaire: Which topics in patient management would rouse a difference of opinion between anesthesiologists and obstetricians that may interfere with patient outcome, and why? The second round sought agreement on the topics, and the third round sought to rank the topics, and their underlying reasons, that scored at least 60% agreement. The final round allowed each discipline insight into the controversies gathered by the other discipline. Ten anesthesiologists and ten obstetricians participated in the study. Anesthesiologists identified twice as many controversial topics as the obstetricians (six vs three, respectively). The obstetricians agreed with all topics identified by the anesthesiologists, but agreed with only five of the 18 (28%) reasons to support them. Anesthesiologists agreed with all topics raised by the obstetricians, but agreed with only three of the six (50%) reasons to support them. Both the obstetricians and the anesthesiologists identified several controversial topics that may influence clinical practice on the labour ward. This information could serve as the basis to develop educational programs and strategies to improve communication between the two disciplines.
    Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 12/2014; 62(3). DOI:10.1007/s12630-014-0294-7 · 2.50 Impact Factor