Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Women Birth ; 36(2): 217-223, 2023 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35941059

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: One of four key points in the Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury Care Bundle, first piloted in the UK in 2016, was the directive to perform episiotomy when clinically indicated. Midwives are the primary health care professional for straightforward births in the UK and there is very little published literature that relates to their practice in this area. AIM: The aim of the study was to explore experienced midwives' decision-making processes in their assessments for episiotomy during birth. METHODS: 43 midwives self-identifying as confident in performing episiotomy were sampled across 8 NHS Trusts in England and Wales. Data collection was via online focus groups and 1:1 interviews. Primary thematic analysis was undertaken by the research team. Preliminary themes were used to structure a co-production analysis workshop where eight experienced midwives undertook a secondary analysis of the data resulting in four overall themes. FINDINGS: Four themes were identified, 'Optimising Perineal Function', 'Red Flags to Stimulate Decision-Making', 'The Midwives' Episiotomy' and 'Infiltration as a Catalyst for Birth'. DISCUSSION: Midwives use a number of visual, auditory and touch cues to inform their assessments for episiotomy during birth. CONCLUSION: This study provides valuable insight into the cues that guide experienced midwives' decision-making in relation to episiotomy and contributes evidence related to performing episiotomy when clinically indicated in spontaneous vaginal birth.


Asunto(s)
Partería , Enfermeras Obstetrices , Complicaciones del Trabajo de Parto , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Episiotomía , Partería/métodos , Perineo/lesiones
2.
BMC Public Health ; 22(1): 1219, 2022 06 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35717164

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Ethnically minoritised people have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging evidence suggests a lower uptake of the vaccine in ethnically minoritised people, particularly Black females of reproductive age. Unvaccinated pregnant women are high risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Midwives are the principal healthcare professionals responsible for counselling the pregnant population on decisions relating to vaccine uptake. The aim of this study was to explore midwifery uptake of and attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine in two ethnically diverse areas. METHODS: A 45-point questionnaire was circulated over a six-week period to midwives employed in two teaching hospitals in England; London (Barts Health NHS Trust) and Sussex (Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust (BSUH)). A total of 378 out of 868 midwives responded. Results were analysed to determine vaccine uptake as well as factors influencing vaccine hesitancy and decision-making between the two trusts and ethnic groups. Thematic analysis was also undertaken. RESULTS: Midwives of Black ethnicities were over 4-times less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccine compared to midwives of White ethnicities (52% vs 85%, adjusted OR = 0.22, p = < 0.001). Overall, there were no significant differences between trusts in receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine (p = 0.13). Midwives at Barts Health were significantly more likely to have tested positive for COVID-19 compared to midwives at BSUH (adjusted OR = 2.55, p = 0.007). There was no statistical difference between ethnicities in testing positive for COVID-19 (p = 0.86). The most common concerns amongst all participants were regarding the long-term effect of the vaccine (35%), that it was developed too fast (24%), having an allergic reaction (22%) and concerns about fertility (15%). Amongst unvaccinated midwives, those of Black ethnicity had a higher occurrence of concern that the vaccine contained meat / porcine products (adjusted OR = 5.93, p = 0.04) and that the vaccine would have an adverse effect on ethnic minorities (adjusted OR = 4.42, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the significantly higher level of vaccine hesitancy amongst Black midwives and offer insights into midwives' concerns. This can facilitate future targeted public health interventions. It is essential that vaccine hesitancy amongst midwifery staff is addressed to improve vaccine uptake in the pregnant population.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Partería , Animales , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Femenino , Humanos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Embarazo , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Porcinos , Vacunación , Vacilación a la Vacunación
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA