Women's childbirth experiences: A content analysis from the Listening to Mothers in California survey.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization's recent recommendations on intrapartum care regard women's experience of care as an essential aspect of high-quality maternity care. A better understanding of women's perspectives on their childbirth experiences in the United States is needed to place women in the center of care and optimize their experience of childbirth. METHODS: This study analyzed data from the Listening to Mothers in California survey completed by a representative sample of women who gave birth in 2016 in California hospitals. Responses to one or both open-ended questions about the best and worst part of respondent's hospital stay for childbirth were subject to a content analysis. RESULTS: Findings from 2539 participants included 2336 best and 1410 worst part responses. References to the attitudes and behaviors of health care practitioners were the most commonly reported (47% best and 29.1% worst part). Nurses were the most frequently mentioned practitioner type. Additional best part categories in rank order included the quality of physical care of the mom and feelings about the care experience. Additional worst part categories in rank order included the quality of the facility and food, delays in care, infant feeding, the quality of physical care of the mom, and lack of privacy. DISCUSSION: Women's hospital experiences during childbirth, while multidimensional in nature, are primarily shaped by their relationships with health care practitioners, the care provided, and the facility in which childbirth occurs. Women's feedback provides actionable information to promote a positive birth experience.

Factors Associated with Unplanned Primary Cesarean Birth: Secondary Analysis of the Listening to Mothers in California Survey.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, cesarean section has become the most common major surgical procedure. Most nations have high cesarean birth rates, suggesting overuse. Due to the excess harm and expense associated with unneeded cesareans, many health systems are seeking approaches to safe reduction of cesarean rates. Surveys of childbearing women are a distinctive and underutilized source of data for examining factors that may contribute to cesarean reduction. METHODS: To identify factors associated with unplanned primary cesarean birth, we carried out a secondary analysis of the Listening to Mothers in California Survey, limited to the subgroup who had not had a previous cesarean birth and did not have a planned primary cesarean (n = 1,964). Participants were identified through birth certificate sampling and contacted initially by mail and then by telephone, text message and email, as available. Sampled women could participate in English or Spanish, on any device or with a telephone interviewer. Following bivariate demographic, knowledge and attitude, and labor management analyses, we carried out multivariable analyses to adjust with covariates and identify factors associated with unplanned primary cesarean birth. RESULTS: Whereas knowledge, attitudes, preferences and behaviors of the survey participants were not associated with having an unplanned primary cesarean birth, their experience of pressure from a health professional to have a cesarean and a series of labor management practices were strongly associated with how they gave birth. These practices included attempted induction of labor, early hospital admission, and labor augmentation. Women's reports of pressure from a health professional to have a primary cesarean were strongly related to the likelihood of cesarean birth. CONCLUSIONS: While women largely wish to avoid unneeded childbirth interventions, their knowledge, preferences and care arrangement practices did not appear to impact their likelihood of an unplanned primary cesarean birth. By contrast, a series of labor management practices and perceived health professional pressure to have a cesarean were associated with unplanned primary cesarean birth. Improving ways to engage childbearing women and implementing changes in labor management and communication practices may be needed to reduce unwarranted cesarean birth.

Does maternity care decision-making conform to shared decision- making standards for repeat cesarean and labor induction after suspected macrosomia?

BACKGROUND: In a national United States survey, we investigated whether crucial shared decision-making standards were met for 2 common maternity care decisions. METHODS: Secondary analysis of Listening to Mothers III. A sequence of validated questions concerning shared decision-making was adapted to 2 maternity care decisions: to induce labor or wait for spontaneous onset of labor among women who were told their baby may be "getting quite large" (N = 349); and for women with 1 or 2 prior cesareans (N = 393), the decision to have a repeat cesarean. RESULTS: Almost half (N = 163; 47%) of women who were told their baby might be large reported engaging in a discussion concerning possible labor induction vs waiting for labor, while a large majority (N = 321; 82%) of women with a prior cesarean discussed the option of a repeat cesarean or a planned vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Women who engaged in discussions received disproportionate information about having the interventions and were more likely to experience the interventions (68% induction, 87% repeat cesarean) than women who did not. After adjustment, women who reported that their provider recommended scheduling a repeat cesarean were 14 times more likely to give birth via cesarean compared with those whose providers recommended planning VBAC (AOR 14.2; 95% CI: 3.2, 63.0). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that, for the decisions in question, established standards of shared decision-making are not being reliably implemented in maternity care despite opportunities to do so. Provider recommendations and the disproportionate conveyance of reasons for an intervention appear to be related to higher levels of intervention.

Standardized outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth, an ICHOM proposal.

BACKGROUND: Value-based health care aims to optimize the balance of patient outcomes and health care costs. To improve value in perinatal care using this strategy, standard outcomes must first be defined. The objective of this work was to define a minimum, internationally appropriate set of outcome measures for evaluating and improving perinatal care with a focus on outcomes that matter to women and their families. METHODS: An interdisciplinary and international Working Group was assembled. Existing literature and current measurement initiatives were reviewed. Serial guided discussions and validation surveys provided consumer input. A series of nine teleconferences, incorporating a modified Delphi process, were held to reach consensus on the proposed Standard Set. RESULTS: The Working Group selected 24 outcome measures to evaluate care during pregnancy and up to 6 months postpartum. These include clinical outcomes such as maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, stillbirth, preterm birth, birth injury and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mental health, mother-infant bonding, confidence and success with breastfeeding, incontinence, and satisfaction with care and birth experience. To support analysis of these outcome measures, pertinent baseline characteristics and risk factor metrics were also defined. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a set of outcome measures for evaluating the care that women and infants receive during pregnancy and the postpartum period. While validation and refinement via pilot implementation projects are needed, we view this as an important initial step towards value-based improvements in care.

Continuous support for women during childbirth.

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.

Continuous support for women during childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Historically, women have been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has become the exception rather than the routine. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the effects of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support compared with usual care. Secondary: to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by: (1) routine practices and policies; (2) the provider's relationship to the hospital and to the woman; and (3) timing of onset. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted the data. We sought additional information from the trial authors. We used random-effects analyses for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present, and we reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two trials involving 15,288 women met inclusion criteria and provided usable outcome data. Results are of random-effects analyses, unless otherwise noted. Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.12) and less likely to have intrapartum analgesia (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) or to report dissatisfaction (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79). In addition, their labours were shorter (MD -0.58 hours, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.31), they were less likely to have a caesarean (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) or instrumental vaginal birth (fixed-effect, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96), regional analgesia (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), or a baby with a low five-minute Apgar score (fixed-effect, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95). There was no apparent impact on other intrapartum interventions, maternal or neonatal complications, or breastfeeding. Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective when the provider was neither part of the hospital staff nor the woman's social network, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. No conclusions could be drawn about the timing of onset of continuous support. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Continuous support during labour has clinically meaningful benefits for women and infants and no known harm. All women should have support throughout labour and birth.

Revisiting "The maximin strategy in modern obstetrics".

Published in 1981, "The Maximin Strategy in Modern Obstetrics" offered two claims: first, that obstetrical interventions ought to be assessed not singly, but rather as packages of interconnected measures that could cumulatively increase risks of harm; and second, that many of these interventions, considered either singly or as a package, lacked a sound evidence base. The first claim has been well supported by later literature, although the term "cascade effect" has proven a more felicitous descriptor for the phenomenon of interventions that trigger the use of other interventions to monitor, prevent, or treat possible side-effects. The second claim was initially supported in a very inadequate way, since the "Maximin" article appeared before an understanding of the methods of systematic reviews of medical evidence had been widely promulgated. Despite these defects, subsequent, rigorously conducted systematic reviews have tended to confirm the impression first offered in 1981, that practices that support physiologic childbearing and the innate, hormonally driven capacities of childbearing women and their fetuses/newborns are much more in keeping with the available evidence than practices involving common or routine high-technology interference with physiologic processes. Harm may occur either directly, through high-technology interventions, or when such procedures distract attention and resources from safe, effective biological processes and lower-technology measures. Surveys indicate a lack of knowledge of this evidence among childbearing women, signaling a serious ethical deficiency in shared decision-making processes and perhaps the skills and knowledge of maternity care clinicians.

Continuous support for women during childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Historically, women have been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has become the exception rather than the routine. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the effects of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support compared with usual care. Secondary: to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by: (1) routine practices and policies; (2) the provider's relationship to the hospital and to the woman; and (3) timing of onset. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted the data. We sought additional information from the trial authors. We used random-effects analyses for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present, and we reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two trials involving 15,288 women met inclusion criteria and provided usable outcome data. Results are of random-effects analyses, unless otherwise noted. Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.12) and less likely to have intrapartum analgesia (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) or to report dissatisfaction (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79). In addition, their labours were shorter (MD -0.58 hours, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.31), they were less likely to have a caesarean (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) or instrumental vaginal birth (fixed-effect, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96), regional analgesia (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), or a baby with a low five-minute Apgar score (fixed-effect, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95). There was no apparent impact on other intrapartum interventions, maternal or neonatal complications, or breastfeeding. Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective when the provider was neither part of the hospital staff nor the woman's social network, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. No conclusions could be drawn about the timing of onset of continuous support. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Continuous support during labour has clinically meaningful benefits for women and infants and no known harm. All women should have support throughout labour and birth.

Improving Our Maternity Care Now Through Midwifery.

This contribution reprints the Executive Summary from a technical report issued by the National Partnership for Women & Families within its larger Improving Our Maternity Care Now project. This project identifies the priority of continuing the long, challenging work of maternity care system transformation, while also increasing access to high-performing care models that can help meet current urgent, dire needs for equitable high-quality care now. The Midwifery report is the first in a series of four reports on these care models, which share distinctive features. They reliably provide highly appropriate services that minimize both underuse of beneficial practices and overuse of unneeded, often harmful practices. They prioritize relationship-based, whole person care that builds trust, confidence and resilience and helps meet the varied needs of birthing families. They incorporate skills and knowledge to support the innate physiologic processes of birthing people and their fetuses/newborns. They achieve remarkable results for consequential outcomes relative to standard maternity care. And childbearing people greatly desire access to these forms of care relative to current access and use. Community-based versions offering trustworthy, respectful, culturally-congruent care are especially powerful. The midwifery report includes recommendations for federal policymakers, state policymakers, and private sector decision makers to increase access to midwifery care. It was carried out in partnership with the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives, and the National Black Midwives Alliance. Access the full project through https://www.nationalpartnership.org/improvingmaternitycare/. The project is supported by the Yellow Chair Foundation and is reprinted with permission. Reproduced with permission of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

Improving Our Maternity Care Now Through Community Birth Settings.

This contribution reprints the Executive Summary from a technical report issued by the National Partnership for Women & Families within its larger Improving Our Maternity Care Now project. This project identifies the priority of continuing the long, challenging work of maternity care system transformation, while also increasing access to high-performing care models that can help meet current urgent, dire needs for equitable high-quality care now. The Community Birth Settings report (encompassing birth center and planned home birth care) is the second in a series of four reports on these care models, which share distinctive features. They reliably provide highly appropriate services that minimize both underuse of beneficial practices and overuse of unneeded, often harmful practices. They prioritize relationship-based, whole person care that builds trust, confidence and resilience and helps meet the varied needs of birthing families. They incorporate skills and knowledge to support the innate physiologic processes of birthing people and their fetuses/newborns. They achieve remarkable results for consequential outcomes relative to standard maternity care. And childbearing people greatly desire access to these forms of care relative to current access and use. Community-based versions offering trustworthy, respectful, culturally-congruent care are especially powerful. The community birth settings report includes recommendations for federal policymakers, state policymakers, and private sector decision makers to increase access to these settings. It was carried out in partnership with the American Association of Birth Centers, American College of Nurse-Midwives, Birth Center Equity, National Association of Certified Professional Midwives, and National Black Midwives Alliance. Access the full project through https://www.nationalpartnership.org/improvingmaternitycare/. The project is supported by the Yellow Chair Foundation. Reproduced with permission of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

Continuous support for women during childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Historically, women have been attended and supported by other women during labour. However in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has become the exception rather than the routine. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the effects of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support compared with usual care. Secondary: to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by: (1) routine practices and policies; (2) the provider's relationship to the hospital and to the woman; and (3) timing of onset. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted the data. We sought additional information from the trial authors. We used random-effects analyses for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present, and we reported results using the risk ratio for categorical data and mean difference for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one trials involving 15061 women met inclusion criteria and provided usable outcome data. Results are of random-effects analyses, unless otherwise noted. Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.12) and less likely to have intrapartum analgesia (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97) or to report dissatisfaction (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79). In addition their labours were shorter (mean difference -0.58 hours, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.30), they were less likely to have a caesarean (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.92) or instrumental vaginal birth (fixed-effect, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96), regional analgesia (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), or a baby with a low 5-minute Apgar score (fixed-effect, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96). There was no apparent impact on other intrapartum interventions, maternal or neonatal complications, or on breastfeeding. Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective when provided by a woman who was neither part of the hospital staff nor the woman's social network, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. No conclusions could be drawn about the timing of onset of continuous support. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Continuous support during labour has clinically meaningful benefits for women and infants and no known harm. All women should have support throughout labour and birth.

Posttraumatic stress disorder in new mothers: results from a two-stage U.S. national survey.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence rates of women in community samples who screened positive for meeting the DSM-IV criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder after childbirth range from 1.7 to 9 percent. A positive screen indicates a high likelihood of this postpartum anxiety disorder. The objective of this analysis was to examine the results that focus on the posttraumatic stress disorder data obtained from a two-stage United States national survey conducted by Childbirth Connection: Listening to Mothers II (LTM II) and Listening to Mothers II Postpartum Survey (LTM II/PP). METHODS: In the LTM II study, 1,373 women completed the survey online, and 200 mothers were interviewed by telephone. The same mothers were recontacted and asked to complete a second questionnaire 6 months later and of those, 859 women completed the online survey and 44 a telephone interview. Data obtained from three instruments are reported in this article: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Scale-Self Report (PSS-SR), Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (PDSS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2). RESULTS: Nine percent of the sample screened positive for meeting the diagnostic criteria of posttraumatic stress disorder after childbirth as determined by responses on the PSS-SR. A total of 18 percent of women scored above the cutoff score on the PSS-SR, which indicated that they were experiencing elevated levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms. The following variables were significantly related to elevated posttraumatic stress symptoms levels: low partner support, elevated postpartum depressive symptoms, more physical problems since birth, and less health-promoting behaviors. In addition, eight variables significantly differentiated women who had elevated posttraumatic stress symptom levels from those who did not: no private health insurance, unplanned pregnancy, pressure to have an induction and epidural analgesia, planned cesarean birth, not breastfeeding as long as wanted, not exclusively breastfeeding at 1 month, and consulting with a clinician about mental well-being since birth. A stepwise multiple regression revealed that two predictor variables significantly explained 55 percent of the variance in posttraumatic stress symptom scores: depressive symptom scores on the PHQ-2 and total number of physical symptoms women were experiencing at the time they completed the LTM II/PP survey. CONCLUSION: In this two-stage national survey the high percentage of mothers who screened positive for meeting all the DSM-IV criteria for a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis is a sobering statistic.

Women's experience of agency and respect in maternity care by type of insurance in California.

OBJECTIVE: Public insurance (Medicaid) covered 42% of all U.S. births in 2018. This paper describes and analyzes the self-reported experiences of women with Medicaid versus commercial insurance relating to autonomy, control and respectful treatment in maternity care. METHODS: The sampling frame for the Listening to Mothers in California survey was drawn from 2016 California birth certificate files. The 30-minute survey had a 55% response rate. A secondary multivariable analysis of results from the survey included 2,318 women with commercial private insurance (1,087) or public (Medi-Cal) (1,231) coverage. Results were weighted and were representative of all births in 2016 in California. The multivariable analysis of variables related to maternal agency included engagement in decision making regarding interventions such as vaginal birth after cesarean and episiotomy, feeling pressured to have interventions and sense of fair treatment. We examined their relationship to insurance status adjusted for maternal age, race/ethnicity, education, nativity and attitude toward birth as well as type of prenatal provider, type of birth attendant and pregnancy complications. RESULTS: Women with Medi-Cal had a demographic profile distinct from those with commercial insurance. In multivariable analysis, women with Medi-Cal reported less control over their maternity care experience than women with commercial insurance, including less choice of prenatal provider (AOR 1.61 95%C.I. 1.20, 2.17), or a vaginal birth after cesarean (AOR 2.93 95%C.I. 1.49, 5.73). Mothers on Medi-Cal were also less likely to be consulted before experiencing an episiotomy (AOR 0.30 95%C.I. 0.09, 0.94). They were more likely to report feeling pressure to have a primary cesarean (AOR 2.54 95%C.I. 1.55, 4.16) and less likely to be encouraged by staff to make their own decisions (AOR 0.63 95%C.I. 0.47, 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Childbearing women with public insurance in California clearly and consistently reported less opportunity to choose their care than women with private insurance. These inequities are a call to action for increased accountability and quality improvement relating to care of the many childbearing women with Medicaid coverage.

Intrapartum Care and Experiences of Women with Midwives Versus Obstetricians in the Listening to Mothers in California Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Many studies based on hospital records or vital statistics have found that childbearing women experience benefits of lower rates of intervention with midwifery care versus obstetric care during labor and birth. Surveys of women's views and experiences can provide a richer analysis when comparing intrapartum care of midwives and obstetricians. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of data from the population-based Listening to Mothers in California survey. The sample, which was representative of 2016 California hospital births, was drawn from birth certificate files and oversampled midwife-attended births. Women responded to the survey in English or Spanish on any device or with a telephone interviewer. The present analysis is based on 1421 of the 2539 participants who identified a midwife or obstetrician as their attendant at a vaginal birth. A bivariate analysis of demographic, attitudinal, and intrapartum variables was conducted. A multivariable model included sociodemographic and attitudinal variables as covariates. RESULTS: Bivariate analyses found significant socioeconomic differences by type of intrapartum care provider, with women in California attended by midwives more likely to be well educated and privately insured than women attended by obstetricians. Women with midwife birth attendants were less likely to report experiencing various intrapartum medical interventions, less likely to experience pressure to have epidural analgesia, and more likely to report that staff encouraged the woman's decision making. Adjusted odds ratios found that women with midwives were less likely to experience medical interventions, including attempted labor induction; labor augmentation; and use of pain medications, epidural analgesia, and intravenous fluids; and less likely to report pressure to have labor induction or epidural analgesia. Women cared for by midwives were more likely to experience any nonpharmacologic pain relief measures and nitrous oxide and to agree that hospital staff encouraged their decision making. DISCUSSION: Using women's own reports of their care experiences and adjusting for possible differences in women's attitudes and case mix, we found that midwifery care of women who had vaginal births was associated with reduced use of medical interventions and increased women's decisional latitude during labor and birth.

Hospital practices and women's likelihood of fulfilling their intention to exclusively breastfeed.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess whether breastfeeding-related hospital practices reported by mothers were associated with achievement of their intentions to exclusively breastfeed. METHODS: We used data from Listening to Mothers II, a nationally representative survey of 1573 mothers who had given birth in a hospital to a singleton in 2005. Mothers were asked retrospectively about their breastfeeding intention, infant feeding at 1 week, and 7 hospital practices. RESULTS: Primiparas reported a substantial difference between their intention to exclusively breastfeed (70%) and this practice at 1 week (50%). They also reported hospital practices that conflicted with the Baby-Friendly Ten Steps, including supplementation (49%) and pacifier use (45%). Primiparas who delivered in hospitals that practiced 6 or 7 of the steps were 6 times more likely to achieve their intention to exclusively breastfeed than were those in hospitals that practiced none or 1 of the steps. Mothers who reported supplemental feedings to their infant were less likely to achieve their intention to exclusively breastfeed: primiparas (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1, 9.3); multiparas (AOR = 8.8; 95% CI = 4.4, 17.6). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals should implement policies that support breastfeeding with particular attention to eliminating supplementation of healthy newborns.

Mothers' reports of postpartum pain associated with vaginal and cesarean deliveries: results of a national survey.

BACKGROUND: As cesarean rates increase worldwide, a debate has arisen over the relationship of method of delivery to maternal postpartum physical health. This study examines mothers' reports of their postpartum experiences with pain stratified by method of delivery. METHODS: Listening to Mothers II was a survey of a total of 1,573 (200 telephone and 1,373 online) mothers aged 18 to 45 years, who had a singleton, hospital birth in 2005. They were interviewed by the survey research firm, Harris Interactive, in early 2006. Online respondents were drawn from an existing Harris panel. Telephone respondents were identified through a national telephone listing of new mothers. Results were weighted to reflect a United States national birthing population. Mothers were asked if they experienced any of eight postpartum conditions and the extent and the duration of the problem. Responses were compared by method of delivery. RESULTS: The most frequently cited postpartum difficulty was among mothers with a cesarean section, 79 percent of whom reported experiencing pain at the incision in the first 2 months after birth, with 33 percent describing it as a major problem and 18 percent reporting persistence of the pain into the sixth month postpartum. Mothers with planned cesareans without labor were as likely as those with cesareans with labor to report problems with postpartum pain. Almost half (48%) of mothers with vaginal births (68% among those with instrumental delivery, 63% with episiotomy, 43% spontaneous vaginal birth with no episiotomy) reported experiencing a painful perineum, with 2 percent reporting the pain persisting for at least 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial proportions of mothers reported problems with postpartum pain. Women experiencing a cesarean section or an assisted vaginal delivery were most likely to report that the pain persisted for an extended period.