Practice variation in induction of labor: A critical document analysis on the contribution of regional protocols.

RATIONALE: Despite national guidelines with recommendations on induction of labor (IOL), large variation in the use of this intervention exists between regions in the Netherlands. Guidelines are translated into protocols, which give a contextual description of medical practice provided in a given region. Possibly, protocols developed by regional multidisciplinary maternity care networks (MCNs) contribute to the regional variation in IOL. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the variation between regional protocols and national guidelines regarding recommendations on IOL and the extent to which this contributes to practice variation. METHOD: We performed a systematic document analysis using the Ready materials, Extract data, Analyze, Distil (READ) approach. National guidelines (n = 4) and regional protocols (n = 18) from six MCNs on topics linked to IOL were assessed between October 2021 and April 2022. An analytical framework was used to extract data for the comparison of regional protocols. RESULTS: Some MCNs followed all the recommendations of national guidelines in their regional protocols, others developed their own recommendations, and for some this varied per topic. When developing their own recommendations, MCNs with a high percentage of IOL added additional risk factors and stricter cut-off values. In contrast, MCNs with a low percentage of IOL added more care options for continuing midwife-led care. No clear relationship was observed between the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) scores of the national guidelines and the extent to which regional protocols complied with the recommendations. CONCLUSION: The translation of national guidelines to regional protocols seemed arbitrary and not very systematic. To reduce unwarranted practice variation in the use of IOL, guidance is needed to better align regional protocols with national guidelines, while including appropriate contextual factors and allowing women's preferences. Additionally, healthcare providers should be trained in practicing evidence-based medicine instead of using evidence.

Validation of the Birth Beliefs Scale for maternity care professionals in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the Birth Beliefs Scale (BBS) for maternity care professionals by testing: (1) content validity; (2) internal reliability; (3) known-group discriminant validity; and examine potential relationships between regions and birth beliefs. METHODS: First, content validity was tested. Before distribution of the questionnaire among maternity care professionals of six maternity care networks (MCNs), adjustments in the statements were made whenever content validity was too low. Data were collected from November 2022 to March 2023. Statistical analysis was performed using Cronbach's alpha, ANOVA and regression analysis. RESULTS: Based on the content validity-test, item 6 of the questionnaire was adjusted before distribution. In total, 199 maternity care professionals completed the questionnaire. A good internal reliability of the BBS was found. There was a significant difference between the different disciplines for the BBS-Med subscale (p < .001), and the BBS-Nat subscale (p < .001). For the BBS-Nat subscale, the factors work experience and MCN were significant in the regression analysis, with interaction on the association between BBS-Nat and discipline. CONCLUSIONS: The BBS is a valid instrument to measure birth beliefs among maternity care professionals. The BBS can help to create awareness within professionals of their beliefs and may help to explain practice variation in childbirth.

Knowledge and skills used for clinical decision-making on childbirth interventions: A qualitative study among midwives in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate use of interventions in maternity care is a worldwide issue. Midwifery-led models of care are associated with more efficient use of resources, fewer medical interventions, and improved outcomes. However, the use of interventions varies considerably between midwives. The aim of this study was to explore how knowledge and skills influence clinical decision-making of midwives on the appropriate use of childbirth interventions. METHODS: A qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 20 primary care midwives was performed in June 2019. Participants' clinical experience varied in the use of interventions. The interviews combined a narrative approach with a semi-structured question route. Data were analyzed using deductive content analysis. RESULTS: 'Knowledge', 'Critical thinking skills', and 'Communication skills' influenced midwives' clinical decision-making towards childbirth interventions. Midwives obtained their knowledge through the formal education program and extended their knowledge by reflecting on experiences and evidence. Midwives with a low use of interventions seem to have a higher level of reflective skills, including reflection-in-action. These midwives used a more balanced communication style with instrumental and affective communication skills in interaction with women, and have more skills to engage in discussions during collaboration with other professionals, and thus personalizing their care. CONCLUSIONS: Midwives with a low use of interventions seemed to have the knowledge and skills of a reflective practitioner, leading to more personalized care compared to standardized care as defined in protocols. Learning through reflectivity, critical thinking skills, and instrumental and affective communication skills, need to be stimulated and trained to pursue appropriate, personalized use of interventions.

Regional variations in childbirth interventions and their correlations with adverse outcomes, birthplace and care provider: A nationwide explorative study.

BACKGROUND: Variations in childbirth interventions may indicate inappropriate use. Most variation studies are limited by the lack of adjustments for maternal characteristics and do not investigate variations in adverse outcomes. This study aims to explore regional variations in the Netherlands and their correlations with referral rates, birthplace, interventions, and adverse outcomes, adjusted for maternal characteristics. METHODS: In this nationwide retrospective cohort study, using a national data register, intervention rates were analysed between twelve regions among single childbirths after 37 weeks' gestation in 2010-2013 (n = 614,730). These were adjusted for maternal characteristics using multivariable logistic regression. Primary outcomes were intrapartum referral, birthplace, and interventions used in midwife- and obstetrician-led care. Correlations both between primary outcomes and between adverse outcomes were calculated with Spearman's rank correlations. FINDINGS: Intrapartum referral rates varied between 55-68% (nulliparous) and 20-32% (multiparous women), with a negative correlation with receiving midwife-led care at the onset of labour in two-thirds of the regions. Regions with higher referral rates had higher rates of severe postpartum haemorrhages. Rates of home birth varied between 6-16% (nulliparous) and 16-31% (multiparous), and was negatively correlated with episiotomy and postpartum oxytocin rates. Among midwife-led births, episiotomy rates varied between 14-42% (nulliparous) and 3-13% (multiparous) and in obstetrician-led births from 46-67% and 14-28% respectively. Rates of postpartum oxytocin varied between 59-88% (nulliparous) and 50-85% (multiparous) and artificial rupture of membranes between 43-52% and 54-61% respectively. A north-south gradient was visible with regard to birthplace, episiotomy, and oxytocin. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that attitudes towards interventions vary, independent of maternal characteristics. Care providers and policy makers need to be aware of reducing unwarranted variation in birthplace, episiotomy and the postpartum use of oxytocin. Further research is needed to identify explanations and explore ways to reduce unwarranted intervention rates.

The dynamics of epidural and opioid analgesia during labour.

PURPOSE: To investigate the association of analgesia, opioids or epidural, or the combination of both with labour duration and spontaneous birth in nulliparous women. METHODS: A secondary data analysis of an existing cohort study was performed and included nulliparous women (n = 2074). Durations of total labour and first and second labour stage were calculated with Kaplan-Meier estimation for the four different study groups: no analgesia (n = 620), opioid analgesia (n = 743), epidural analgesia (n = 482), and combined application (n = 229). Labour duration was compared by Cox regression while adjusting for confounders and censoring for operative births. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between the administration of different types of analgesia and mode of birth. RESULTS: Most women in the combined application group were first to receive opioid analgesia. Women with no analgesia had the shortest duration of labour (log rank p < 0.001) and highest chance of a spontaneous birth (p < 0.001). If analgesia was administered, women with opioids had a shorter first stage (p = 0.018), compared to women with epidural (p < 0.001) or women with combined application (p < 0.001). Women with opioids had an increased chance to reach full cervical dilatation (p = 0.006). Women with epidural analgesia (p < 0.001) and women with combined application (p < 0.001) had a prolonged second stage and decreased chance of spontaneous birth compared to women without analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Women with opioids had a prolonged first stage, but increased chance to reach full cervical dilatation. Women with epidural analgesia and women with both opioid and epidural analgesia had a prolonged first and second stage and a decreased chance of a spontaneous birth.