In search of respect and continuity of care: Hungarian women's experiences with midwifery-led, community birth.

INTRODUCTION: To describe and compare intervention rates and experiences of respectful care when Hungarian women opt to give birth in the community. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey (N = 1257) in 2014. We calculated descriptive statistics comparing obstetric procedure rates, respectful care indicators, and autonomy (MADM scale) across four models of care (public insurance; chosen doctor or chosen midwife in the public system; private midwife-led community birth). We used an intention-to-treat approach. After adjusting for social and clinical covariates, we used logistic regression to estimate the odds of obstetric procedures and disrespectful care and linear regression to estimate the level of autonomy (MADM scale). FINDINGS: In the sample, 99 (7.8%) saw a community midwife for prenatal care. Those who planned community births had the lowest rates of cesarean at 9.1% (public: 30.4%; chosen doctor: 45.2%; chosen midwife 16.5%), induced labor at 7.1% (public: 23.1%; chosen doctor: 26.0%; chosen midwife: 19.4%), and episiotomy at 4.44% (public: 62.3%; chosen doctor: 66.2%; chosen midwife: 44.9%). Community birth clients reported the lowest rates of disrespectful care at 25.5% (public: 64.3%; chosen doctor: 44.3%; chosen midwife: 38.7%) and the highest average MADM score at 31.5 (public: 21.2; chosen doctor: 25.5; chosen midwife: 28.6). In regression analysis, community midwifery clients had significantly reduced odds of cesarean (0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.79), induced labor (0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.67), episiotomy (0.04, 95% CI 0.01-0.12), and disrespectful care (0.36, 95% CI 0.21-0.61), while also having significantly higher average MADM scores (5.71, 95% CI 4.08-7.36). CONCLUSIONS: Hungarian women who plan to give birth in the community have low obstetric procedure rates and report greater respect, in line with international data on the effects of place of birth and model of care on experiences of perinatal care.

Assessing patient autonomy in the context of TeamBirth, a quality improvement intervention to improve shared decision-making during labor and birth.

BACKGROUND: Respectful maternity care includes shared decision-making (SDM). However, research on SDM is lacking from the intrapartum period and instruments to measure it have only recently been developed. TeamBirth is a quality improvement initiative that uses team huddles to improve SDM during labor and birth. Team huddles are structured meetings including the patient and full care team when the patient's preferences, care plans, and expectations for when the next huddle will occur are reviewed. METHODS: We used patient survey data (n = 1253) from a prospective observational study at four U.S. hospitals to examine the relationship between TeamBirth huddles and SDM. We measured SDM using the Mother's Autonomy in Decision-Making (MADM) scale. Linear regression models were used to assess the association between any exposure to huddles and the MADM score and between the number of huddles and the MADM score. RESULTS: In our multivariable model, experiencing a huddle was significantly associated with a 3.13-point higher MADM score. When compared with receiving one huddle, experiencing 6+ huddles yielded a 3.64-point higher MADM score. DISCUSSION: Patients reporting at least one TeamBirth huddle experienced significantly higher SDM, as measured by the MADM scale. Our findings align with prior research that found actively involving the patient in their care by creating structured opportunities to discuss preferences and choices enables SDM. We also demonstrated that MADM is sensitive to hospital-based quality improvement, suggesting that future labor and birth interventions might adopt MADM as a patient-reported experience measure.

Birth includes us: Development of a community-led survey to capture experiences of pregnancy care among LGBTQ2S+ families.

BACKGROUND: Limited research captures the intersectional and nuanced experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, two-spirit, and other sexual and gender-minoritized (LGBTQ2S+) people when accessing perinatal care services, including care for pregnancy, birth, abortion, and/or pregnancy loss. METHODS: We describe the participatory research methods used to develop the Birth Includes Us survey, an online survey study to capture experiences of respectful perinatal care for LGBTQ2S+ individuals. From 2019 to 2021, our research team in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder Community Steering Council identified, adapted, and/or designed survey items which were reviewed and then content validated by community members with lived experience. RESULTS: The final survey instrument spans the perinatal care experience, from preconception to early parenthood, and includes items to capture experiences of care across different pregnancy roles (eg, pregnant person, partner/co-parent, intended parent using surrogacy) and pregnancy outcomes (eg, live birth, stillbirth, miscarriage, and abortion). Three validated measures of respectful perinatal care are included, as well as measures to assess experiences of racism, discrimination, and bias across intersections of identity. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: By centering diverse perspectives in the review process, the Birth Includes Us instrument is the first survey to assess the range of experiences within LGBTQ2S+ communities. This instrument is ready for implementation in studies that seek to examine geographic and identity-based perinatal health outcomes and care experiences among LGBTQ2S+ people.

Examining respect, autonomy, and mistreatment in childbirth in the US: do provider type and place of birth matter?

BACKGROUND: Analyses of factors that determine quality of perinatal care consistently rely on clinical markers, while failing to assess experiential outcomes. Understanding how model of care and birth setting influence experiences of respect, autonomy, and decision making, is essential for comprehensive assessment of quality. METHODS: We examined responses (n = 1771) to an online cross-sectional national survey capturing experiences of perinatal care in the United States. We used validated patient-oriented measures and scales to assess four domains of experience: (1) decision-making, (2) respect, (3) mistreatment, and (4) time spent during visits. We categorized the provider type and birth setting into three groups: midwife at community birth, midwife at hospital-birth, and physician at hospital-birth. For each group, we used multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics, to estimate the odds of experiential outcomes in all the four domains. RESULTS: Compared to those cared for by physicians in hospitals, individuals cared for by midwives in community settings had more than five times the odds of experiencing higher autonomy (aOR: 5.22, 95% CI: 3.65-7.45), higher respect (aOR: 5.39, 95% CI: 3.72-7.82) and lower odds of mistreatment (aOR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10-0.26). We found significant differences across birth settings: participants cared for by midwives in the community settings had significantly better experiential outcomes than those in the hospital settings: high- autonomy (aOR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.66-4.27), respect (aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 2.81-6.14), mistreatment (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.34), time spent (aOR: 8.06, 95% CI: 4.26-15.28). CONCLUSION: Participants reported better experiential outcomes when cared for by midwives than by physicians. And for those receiving midwifery care, the quality of experiential outcomes was significantly higher in community settings than in hospital settings. Care settings matter and structures of hospital-based care may impair implementation of the person-centered midwifery care model.

Preterm and low birthweight birth in the United States: Black midwives speak of causality, prevention, and healing.

BACKGROUND: Low birthweight (LBW) and preterm birth (PTB) are more common among Black infants than white infants in the United States. Although multiple hypotheses have been proposed to explain elevated rates of PTB and LBW, the perspectives of Black midwives who serve Black communities are largely missing from the literature. METHODS: Using semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a purposive sample of midwives (n = 29), we elicited midwives' perceptions of PTB and LBW causation, as well as insights on culturally congruent strategies for prevention. We used consensus coding and reciprocal ethnography to increase the rigor of our analyses. RESULTS: Midwives identified three intersecting and predisposing root causes: (1) systemic racism; (2) the epigenetic legacy of enslavement; and (3) ongoing cultural loss. In response to these stressors, midwives recommended variants of two additional themes-(4) community building; and (5) culturally centered care-as essential to reversing mortality trends among Black babies. DISCUSSION: Midwives' perspectives, which are supported by relevant literature, provide critical insights that should inform both research and policy aimed at promoting birth justice in the United States and beyond.

Coercion and non-consent during birth and newborn care in the United States.

In the United States, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) experience more adverse health outcomes and report mistreatment during pregnancy and birth care. The rights to bodily autonomy and consent are core components of high-quality health care. To assess experiences of coercion and nonconsent for procedures during perinatal care among racialized service users in the United States, we analyzed data from the Giving Voice to Mothers (GVtM-US) study. METHODS: In a subset analysis of the full sample of 2700, we examined survey responses for participants who described the experience of pressure or nonconsented procedures or intervention during perinatal care. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses by racial and ethnic identity for the outcomes: pressure to have perinatal procedures (eg, induction, epidurals, episiotomy, fetal monitoring), nonconsented procedures performed during perinatal care, pressure to have a cesarean birth, and nonconsented procedures during vaginal births. RESULTS: Among participants (n = 2490), 34% self-identified as BIPOC, and 37% had a planned hospital birth. Overall, we found significant differences in pressure and nonconsented perinatal procedures by racial and ethnic identity. These inequities persisted even after controlling for contextual factors, such as birthplace, practitioner type, and prenatal care context. For example, more participants with Black racial identity experienced nonconsented procedures during perinatal care (AOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.35-2.64) and vaginal births (AOR 1.87, 95% CI 1.23-2.83) than those identifying as white. In addition, people who identified as other minoritized racial and ethnic identities reported experiencing more pressure to accept perinatal procedures (AOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.08-2.20) than those who were white. DISCUSSION: There is a need to address human rights violations in perinatal care for all birthing people with particular attention to the needs of those identifying as BIPOC. By eliminating mistreatment in perinatal care, such as pressure to accept services and nonconsented procedures, we can help mitigate long-standing inequities.

The Impact of Culturally-Centered Care on Peripartum Experiences of Autonomy and Respect in Community Birth Centers: A Comparative Study.

OBJECTIVE: National studies report that birth center care is associated with reduced racial and ethnic disparities and reduced experiences of mistreatment. In the US, there are very few BIPOC-owned birth centers. This study examines the impact of culturally-centered care delivered at Roots, a Black-owned birth center, on the experience of client autonomy and respect. METHODS: To investigate if there was an association between experiences of autonomy and respect for Roots versus the national Giving Voice to Mothers (GVtM) participants, we applied Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for the overall sample and stratified by race. RESULTS: Among BIPOC clients in the national GVtM sample and the Roots sample, MADM and MORi scores were statistically higher for clients receiving culturally-centered care at Roots (MADM p < 0.001, MORi p = 0.011). No statistical significance was found in scores between BIPOC and white clients at Roots Birth Center, however there was a tighter range among BIPOC individuals receiving care at Roots showing less variance in their experience of care. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Our study confirms previous findings suggesting that giving birth at a community birth center is protective against experiences of discrimination when compared to care in the dominant, hospital-based system. Culturally-centered care might enhance the experience of perinatal care even further, by decreasing variance in BIPOC experience of autonomy and respect. Policies on maternal health care reimbursement should add focus on making community birth sustainable, especially for BIPOC provider-owners offering culturally-centered care.

Transdisciplinary Imagination: Addressing Equity and Mistreatment in Perinatal Care.

Inequities in birth outcomes are linked to experiential and environmental exposures. There have been expanding and intersecting wicked problems of inequity, racism, and quality gaps in childbearing care during the pandemic. We describe how an intentional transdisciplinary process led to development of a novel knowledge exchange vehicle that can improve health equity in perinatal services. We introduce the Quality Perinatal Services Hub, an open access digital platform to disseminate evidence based guidance, enhance health systems accountability, and provide a two-way flow of information between communities and health systems on rights-based perinatal services. The QPS-Hub responds to both community and decision-makers' needs for information on respectful maternity care. The QPS-Hub is well poised to facilitate collaboration between policy makers, healthcare providers and patients, with particular focus on the needs of childbearing families in underserved and historically excluded communities.

Kairos care in a Chronos world: Midwifery care as model of resistance and accountability in public health settings.

BACKGROUND: In the United States (US), pregnancy-related mortality is 2-4 times higher for Black and Indigenous women irrespective of income and education. The integration of midwifery as a fundamental component of standard maternity services has been shown to improve health outcomes and service user satisfaction, including among underserved and minoritized groups. Nonetheless, there remains limited uptake of this model in the United States. In this study, we examine a series of interdependent factors that shape how midwifery care operates in historically disenfranchised communities within the Unites States. METHODS: Using data collected from in-depth, semi-structured interviews, the purpose of this study was to examine the ways midwives recount, describe, and understand the relationships that drive their work in a publicly funded urban health care setting serving minoritized communities. Using a qualitative exploratory research design, guided by critical feminist theory, twenty full-scope midwives working in a large public health care network participated. Data were thematically analyzed using Braun & Clarke's inductive thematic analysis to interpret data and inductively identify patterns in participants' experiences. FINDINGS: The overarching theme "Kairos care in a Chronos World" captures the process of providing health-promoting, individualized care in a system that centers measurement, efficiency, and pathology. Five subthemes support the central theme: (1) the politics of progress, (2) normalizing pathologies, (3) cherished connections, (4) protecting the experience, and (5) caring for the social body. Midwives used relationships to sustain their unique care model, despite the conflicting demands of dominant (and dominating) medical models. CONCLUSION: This study offers important insight into how midwives use a Kairos approach to maternity care to enhance quality and safety. In order to realize equitable access to optimal outcomes, health systems seeking to provide robust services to historically disenfranchised communities should consider integration of relationship-based strategies, including midwifery care.

Examining obstetric interventions and respectful maternity care in Hungary: Do informal payments for continuity of care link to quality?

BACKGROUND: In Hungary, 60% of women pay informally to secure continuity with a "chosen" provider for prenatal care and birth. It is unclear if paying informally influences quality of maternity care. This study examined associations between incentivized continuity care models and obstetric procedures and respectful care. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of Hungarian women (N = 589) in 2014. We calculated descriptive statistics comparing experiences among women who paid informally for continuity with a chosen provider with those who received care in the public health system. After adjusting for social and clinical covariates, we used logistic regression to estimate the odds of obstetric procedures and disrespectful care and linear regression to estimate the level of autonomy (MADM scale). RESULTS: Of women in our sample, 317 (53%) saw a chosen doctor, 68 (11%) a chosen midwife, and 204 (33%) had care in the public system. Women who paid an obstetrician informally had the highest rates of cesarean (49.5%), induction of labor (31.2%), and epidural (15%), and reported lower rates of disrespectful care (41%) compared to public care (64%). Paying for continuity with an obstetrician significantly predicted cesarean (aOR 1.61 [95%CI 1.00-2.58]), episiotomy (2.64, [1.39-5.03]), and epidural (3.15 [1.07-9.34]), but not induction of labor (1.59 [0.99-2.57]). Informal payment continuity models predicted increased autonomy scores (doctor: 3.97, 95% CI 2.39-5.55; midwife: 7.37, 95% CI 5.36-9.34) and reduced odds of disrespectful care. There were no differences in the prevalence of scheduled cesareans or inductions performed without a medical indication. CONCLUSIONS: Continuity models secured with informal payments significantly increased both women's experience of respectful care and rates of obstetric procedures. Intervention rates exceed global standards, and women do not choose elective procedures to preserve continuity.

Perinatal outcomes of planned home birth after cesarean and planned hospital vaginal birth after cesarean at term gestation in British Columbia, Canada: A retrospective population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective population-based cohort study was to determine whether the mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal outcomes differ between planned home VBAC (HBAC) and planned hospital VBAC. METHODS: All midwifery clients with at least one prior cesarean birth delivered between April 2000 and March 2017 (N = 4741; n = 4180 planned hospital VBAC, n = 561 planned HBAC) were included. Multivariate binomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to calculate the odds ratios adjusted for the potential covariates. The primary outcome was the mode of delivery, and the secondary outcomes were uterine rupture/dehiscence, postpartum hemorrhage, nonintact perineum, episiotomy, obstetric trauma, Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal resuscitation requiring positive pressure ventilation, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and a composite outcome of severe neonatal mortality and morbidity and maternal mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: Planned HBAC was associated with a significant 39% decrease in the odds of having a cesarean birth (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.79) adjusting for the prepregnancy and pregnancy characteristics. Severe adverse outcomes were relatively rare in both settings; thus, our study did not have sufficient power to detect the true differences associated with the place of birth. CONCLUSIONS: Home births for those eligible for VBACs and attended by registered midwives within an integrated health system were associated with higher vaginal birth rates compared with planned hospital VBACs. Severe adverse outcomes were relatively rare in both settings.

"I had to fight for my VBAC": A mixed methods exploration of women's experiences of pregnancy and vaginal birth after cesarean in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) is safe, cost-effective, and beneficial. Despite professional recommendations supporting VBAC and high success rates, VBAC rates in the United States (US) have remained below 15% since 2002. Very little has been written about access to VBAC in the United States from the perspectives of birthing people. We describe findings from a mixed methods study examining experiences seeking a VBAC in the United States. METHODS: Individuals with a history of cesarean and recent subsequent birth were recruited through social media groups. Using an online questionnaire, we collected sociodemographic and birth history information, qualitative accounts of participants' experiences, and scores on the Mothers on Respect Index, the Mothers Autonomy in Decision Making Scale, and the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. RESULTS: Participants (N = 1711) representing all 50 states completed the questionnaire; 1151 provided qualitative data. Participants who planned a VBAC reported significantly greater decision-making autonomy and respectful treatment in their maternity care compared with those who did not. The qualitative theme: "I had to fight for my VBAC" describes participants' accounts of navigating obstacles to VBAC, including finding a supportive provider and traveling long distances to locate a clinician and/or hospital willing to provide care. Participants cited support from providers, doulas, and peers as critical to their ability to acquire the requisite knowledge and power to effectively self-advocate. DISCUSSION: Findings highlight the difficulties individuals face accessing VBAC within the context of a complex health system and help to explain why rates of attempted VBAC remain low.

I felt so much conflict instead of joy: an analysis of open-ended comments from people in British Columbia who declined care recommendations during pregnancy and childbirth.

BACKGROUND: No Canadian studies to date have examined the experiences of people who decline aspects of care during pregnancy and birth. The current analysis bridges this gap by describing comments from 1123 people in British Columbia (BC) who declined a test or procedure that their care provider recommended. METHODS: In the Changing Childbirth in BC study, childbearing people designed a mixed-methods study, including a cross-sectional survey on experiences of provider-patient interactions over the course of maternity care. We conducted a descriptive quantitative content analysis of 1540 open ended comments about declining care recommendations. RESULTS: More than half of all study participants (n = 2100) declined care at some point during pregnancy, birth, or the postpartum period (53.5%), making this a common phenomenon. Participants most commonly declined genetic or gestational diabetes testing, ultrasounds, induction of labour, pharmaceutical pain management during labour, and eye prophylaxis for the newborn. Some people reported that care providers accepted or supported their decision, and others described pressure and coercion from providers. These negative interactions resulted in childbearing people feeling invisible, disempowered and in some cases traumatized. Loss of trust in healthcare providers were also described by childbearing people whose preferences were not respected whereas those who felt informed about their options and supported to make decisions about their care reported positive birth experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Declining care is common during pregnancy and birth and care provider reactions and behaviours greatly influence how childbearing people experience these events. Our findings confirm that clinicians need further training in person-centred decision-making, including respectful communication even when choices fall outside of standard care.

The role of midwifery and other international insights for maternity care in the United States: An analysis of four countries.

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) spends more on health care than any other high-resource country. Despite this, their maternal and newborn outcomes are worse than all other countries with similar levels of economic development. Our purpose was to describe maternal and newborn outcomes and organization of care in four high-resource countries (Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and United Kingdom) with consistently better outcomes and lower health care costs, and to identify opportunities for emulation and improvement in the United States. METHOD: We examined resources that described health care organization and financing, provider types, birth settings, national, clinical guidelines, health care policies, surveillance data, and information for consumers. We conducted interviews with country stakeholders representing the disciplines of obstetrics, midwifery, pediatrics, neonatology, epidemiology, sociology, political science, public health, and health services. The results of the analysis were compared and contrasted with the US maternity system. RESULTS: The four countries had lower rates of maternal mortality, low birthweight, and newborn and infant death than the United States. Five commonalities were identified as follows: (1) affordable/ accessible health care, (2) a maternity workforce that emphasized midwifery care and interprofessional collaboration, (3) respectful care and maternal autonomy, (4) evidence-based guidelines on place of birth, and (5) national data collections systems. CONCLUSIONS: The findings reveal marked differences in the other countries compared to the United States. It is critical to consider the evidence for improved maternal and newborn outcomes with different models of care and to examine US cultural and structural failures that are leading to unacceptable and substandard maternal and infant outcomes.

The Giving Voice to Mothers study: inequity and mistreatment during pregnancy and childbirth in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Recently WHO researchers described seven dimensions of mistreatment in maternity care that have adverse impacts on quality and safety. Applying the WHO framework for quality care, service users partnered with NGOs, clinicians, and researchers, to design and conduct the Giving Voice to Mothers (GVtM)-US study. METHODS: Our multi-stakeholder team distributed an online cross-sectional survey to capture lived experiences of maternity care in diverse populations. Patient-designed items included indicators of verbal and physical abuse, autonomy, discrimination, failure to meet professional standards of care, poor rapport with providers, and poor conditions in the health system. We quantified the prevalence of mistreatment by race, socio-demographics, mode of birth, place of birth, and context of care, and describe the intersectional relationships between these variables. RESULTS: Of eligible participants (n = 2700), 2138 completed all sections of the survey. One in six women (17.3%) reported experiencing one or more types of mistreatment such as: loss of autonomy; being shouted at, scolded, or threatened; and being ignored, refused, or receiving no response to requests for help. Context of care (e.g. mode of birth; transfer; difference of opinion) correlated with increased reports of mistreatment. Experiences of mistreatment differed significantly by place of birth: 5.1% of women who gave birth at home versus 28.1% of women who gave birth at the hospital. Factors associated with a lower likelihood of mistreatment included having a vaginal birth, a community birth, a midwife, and being white, multiparous, and older than 30 years. Rates of mistreatment for women of colour were consistently higher even when examining interactions between race and other maternal characteristics. For example, 27.2% of women of colour with low SES reported any mistreatment versus 18.7% of white women with low SES. Regardless of maternal race, having a partner who was Black also increased reported mistreatment. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to use indicators developed by service users to describe mistreatment in childbirth in the US. Our findings suggest that mistreatment is experienced more frequently by women of colour, when birth occurs in hospitals, and among those with social, economic or health challenges. Mistreatment is exacerbated by unexpected obstetric interventions, and by patient-provider disagreements.

Asking different questions: A call to action for research to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child.

Despite decades of considerable economic investment in improving the health of families and newborns world-wide, aspirations for maternal and newborn health have yet to be attained in many regions. The global turn toward recognizing the importance of positive experiences of pregnancy, intrapartum and postnatal care, and care in the first weeks of life, while continuing to work to minimize adverse outcomes, signals a critical change in the maternal and newborn health care conversation and research prioritization. This paper presents "different research questions" drawing on evidence presented in the 2014 Lancet Series on Midwifery and a research prioritization study conducted with the World Health Organization. The results indicated that future research investment in maternal and newborn health should be on "right care," which is quality care that is tailored to individuals, weighs benefits and harms, is person-centered, works across the whole continuum of care, advances equity, and is informed by evidence, including cost-effectiveness. Three inter-related research themes were identified: examination and implementation of models of care that enhance both well-being and safety; investigating and optimizing physiological, psychological, and social processes in pregnancy, childbirth, and the postnatal period; and development and validation of outcome measures that capture short and longer term well-being. New, transformative research approaches should account for the underlying social and political-economic mechanisms that enhance or constrain the well-being of women, newborns, families, and societies. Investment in research capacity and capability building across all settings is critical, but especially in those countries that bear the greatest burden of poor outcomes. We believe this call to action for investment in the three research priorities identified in this paper has the potential to achieve these benefits and to realize the ambitions of Sustainable Development Goal Three of good health and well-being for all.

Through the resident lens: examining knowledge and attitudes about midwifery among physician trainees.

Interprofessional collaboration optimizes maternal-newborn outcomes and satisfaction with care. Since 2002, midwives have provided an increasing proportion of maternity care in British Columbia (BC). Midwives often collaborate with and/or refer to physicians; but no study to date has explored Canadian medical trainees' exposure to, knowledge of, and attitudes towards midwifery practice. We designed an online cross-sectional questionnaire that included a scale to measure attitudes towards midwifery (13 items) and residents' knowledge of midwifery (94 items across 5 domains). A multi-disciplinary expert panel rated each item for importance, relevance, and clarity. The survey was distributed to family medicine (n = 338) and obstetric (n = 40) residents in BC. We analyzed responses from 114 residents. Residents with more favourable exposures to midwifery during their education had significantly more positive attitudes towards midwives (rs = 0.32, p = 0.007). We also found a significant positive correlation between residents' attitudes towards midwifery and four of five knowledge domains: scope of practice (rs = 0.41, p < 0.001); content of education (rs = 0.30, p = 0.002), equipment midwives carry to home births (rs = 0.30, p = 0.004) and tests that midwives can order (rs = 0.39, p < 0.001). The most unfavourable exposures were observing interprofessional conversations (66.2%), and providing inpatient consultations for midwives (61.4%). Findings suggest increased interprofessional education may foster improved midwife-physician collaboration. Abbreviations: BC - British Columbia; UBC - University of British Columbia.

Assessing quality of maternity care in Hungary: expert validation and testing of the mother-centered prenatal care (MCPC) survey instrument.

BACKGROUND: Instruments to assess quality of maternity care in Central and Eastern European (CEE) region are scarce, despite reports of poor doctor-patient communication, non-evidence-based care, and informal cash payments. We validated and tested an online questionnaire to study maternity care experiences among Hungarian women. METHODS: Following literature review, we collated validated items and scales from two previous English-language surveys and adapted them to the Hungarian context. An expert panel assessed items for clarity and relevance on a 4-point ordinal scale. We calculated item-level Content Validation Index (CVI) scores. We designed 9 new items concerning informal cash payments, as well as 7 new "model of care" categories based on mode of payment. The final questionnaire (N = 111 items) was tested in two samples of Hungarian women, representative (N = 600) and convenience (N = 657). We conducted bivariate analysis and thematic analysis of open-ended responses. RESULTS: Experts rated pre-existing English-language items as clear and relevant to Hungarian women's maternity care experiences with an average CVI for included questions of 0.97. Significant differences emerged across the model of care categories in terms of informal payments, informed consent practices, and women's perceptions of autonomy. Thematic analysis (N = 1015) of women's responses identified 13 priority areas of the maternity care experience, 9 of which were addressed by the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a comprehensive questionnaire that can be used to evaluate respectful maternity care, evidence-based practice, and informal cash payments in CEE region and beyond.

The Canadian birth place study: examining maternity care provider attitudes and interprofessional conflict around planned home birth.

BACKGROUND: Available birth settings have diversified in Canada since the integration of regulated midwifery. Midwives are required to offer eligible women choice of birth place; and 25-30% of midwifery clients plan home births. Canadian provincial health ministries have instituted reimbursement schema and regulatory guidelines to ensure access to midwives in all settings. Evidence from well-designed Canadian cohort studies demonstrate the safety and efficacy of midwife-attended home birth. However, national rates of planned home birth remain low, and many maternity providers do not support choice of birth place. METHODS: In this national, mixed-methods study, our team administered a cross-sectional survey, and developed a 17 item Provider Attitudes to Planned Home Birth Scale (PAPHB-m) to assess attitudes towards home birth among maternity providers. We entered care provider type into a linear regression model, with the PAPHB-m score as the outcome variable. Using Students' t tests and ANOVA for categorical variables and correlational analysis (Pearson's r) for continuous variables, we conducted provider-specific bivariate analyses of all socio-demographic, education, and practice variables (n=90) that were in both the midwife and physician surveys. RESULTS: Median favourability scores on the PAPHB-m scale were very low among obstetricians (33.0), moderately low for family physicians (38.0) and very high for midwives (80.0), and 84% of the variance in attitudes could be accounted for by care provider type. Amount of exposure to planned home birth during midwifery or medical education and practice was significantly associated with favourability scores. Concerns about perinatal loss and lawsuits, discomfort with inter-professional consultations, and preference for the familiarity of the hospital correlated with less favourable attitudes to home birth. Among all providers, favourability scores were linked to beliefs about the evidence on safety of home birth, and confidence in their own ability to manage obstetric emergencies at a home birth. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the knowledge base among all maternity providers about planned home birth may increase favourability. Key learning competencies include criteria for birth site selection, management of obstetric emergencies at planned home births, critical appraisal of literature on safety of home birth, and inter-professional communication and collaboration when women are transferred from home to hospital.

Perinatal Mood and Anxiety Disorder and Reproductive Justice: Examining Unmet Needs for Mental Health and Social Services in a National Cohort.

Introduction: Perinatal Mood and Anxiety Disorders (PMADs) are the most common complications during the perinatal period. There is limited understanding of the gaps between need and provision of comprehensive health services for childbearing people, especially among racialized populations. Methods: The Giving Voice to Mothers Study (GVtM; n=2700), led by a multistakeholder, Steering Council, captured experiences of engaging with perinatal services, including access, respectful care, and health systems' responsiveness across the United States. A patient-designed survey included variables to assess relationships between race, care provider type (midwife or doctor), and needs for psychosocial health services. We calculated summary statistics and tested for significant differences across racialized groups, subsequently reporting odds ratios (ORs) for each group. Results: Among all respondents, 11% (n=274) reported unmet needs for social and mental health services. Indigenous women were three times as likely to have unmet needs for treatment for depression (OR [95% confidence interval, CI]: 3.1 [1.5-6.5]) or mental health counseling (OR [95% CI]: 2.8 [1.5-5.4]), followed by Black women (OR [95% CI]: 1.8 [1.2-2.8] and 2.4 [1.7-3.4]). Odds of postpartum screening for PMAD were significantly lower for Latina women (OR [95% CI]=0.6 [0.4-0.8]). Those with midwife providers were significantly more likely to report screening for anxiety or depression (OR [95% CI]=1.81 [1.45-2.23]) than those with physician providers. Discussion: We found significant unmet need for mental health screening and treatment in the United States. Our results confirm racial disparities in referrals to social services and highlight differences across provider types. We discuss barriers to the integration of assessments and interventions for PMAD into routine perinatal services. Implications: We propose incentivizing reimbursement schema for screening and treatment programs; for community-based organizations that provide mental health and social services; and for culture-centered midwife-led perinatal and birth centers. Addressing these gaps is essential to reproductive justice.