Exploring psychosocial vulnerability among Dutch pregnant women: a register study.

In the Netherlands adverse perinatal outcomes are also associated with non-medical factors which vary across geographical locations. This study analyses the presence of non-medical vulnerabilities in pregnant women in two regions with high numbers of psychosocial adversity using the same definition for vulnerability in both regions. A register study was performed in 2 regions. Files from women in midwife-led care were analyzed using a standardized case report form addressing non-medical vulnerability based on the Rotterdam definition for vulnerability: measurement A in Groningen (n = 500), measurement B in South-Limburg (n = 538). Only in South-Limburg a second measurement was done after implementing an identification tool for vulnerability (C (n = 375)). In both regions about 10% of pregnant women had one or more urgent vulnerabilities and almost all of these women had an accumulation of several urgent and non-urgent vulnerabilities. Another 10% of women had an accumulation of three or more non-urgent vulnerabilities. This study showed that by using the Rotterdam definition of vulnerability in both regions about 20% of pregnant women seem to live in such a vulnerable situation that they may need psychosocial support. The definition seems a good tool to determine vulnerability. However, without considering protective factors it is difficult to establish precisely women's vulnerability. Research should reveal whether relevant women receive support and whether this approach contributes to better perinatal and child outcomes.

Development of the Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool for maternity care (CHAT-maternity-care): participatory action research.

BACKGROUND: Limited health literacy in (expectant) parents is associated with adverse health outcomes. Maternity care providers often experience difficulties assessing (expectant) parents' level of health literacy. The aim was to develop, evaluate, and iteratively adapt a conversational tool that supports maternity care providers in estimating (expectant) parents' health literacy. METHODS: In this participatory action research study, we developed a conversational tool for estimating the health literacy of (expectant) parents based on the Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool for general care, which in turn was based on the Health Literacy Questionnaire. We used a thorough iterative process including different maternity care providers, (expectant) parents, and a panel of experts. This expert panel comprised representatives from knowledge institutions, professional associations, and care providers with whom midwives and maternity care assistants work closely. Testing, evaluation and adjustment took place in consecutive rounds and was conducted in the Netherlands between 2019 and 2022. RESULTS: The conversational tool 'CHAT-maternity-care' covers four key domains: (1) supportive relationship with care providers; (2) supportive relationship within parents' personal network; (3) health information access and comprehension; (4) current health behaviour and health promotion. Each domain contains multiple example questions and example observations. Participants contributed to make the example questions and example observations accessible and usable for daily practice. The CHAT-maternity-care supports maternity care providers in estimating (expectant) parents' health literacy during routine conversations with them, increased maternity care providers' awareness of health literacy and helped them to identify where attention is necessary regarding (expectant) parents' health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: The CHAT-maternity-care is a promising conversational tool to estimate (expectant) parents' health literacy. It covers the relevant constructs of health literacy from both the Conversational Health Literacy Assessment Tool and Health Literacy Questionnaire, applied to maternity care. A preliminary evaluation of the use revealed positive feedback. Further testing and evaluation of the CHAT-maternity-care is required with a larger and more diverse population, including more (expectant) parents, to determine the effectiveness, perceived barriers, and perceived facilitators for implementation.

Operative deliveries in low-risk pregnancies in The Netherlands: primary versus secondary care.

BACKGROUND: In The Netherlands, 35 percent of births take place in "primary care" to women considered at low risk and during labor, approximately 30 percent are referred to "secondary care." High-risk women and some low-risk women deliver in secondary care. This study sought to compare planned place of birth and incidence of operative delivery among women at low risk of complications at the time of onset of labor. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of data about births in The Netherlands during 2003 that were recorded routinely in the Netherlands Perinatal Registry. Mode of delivery was analyzed for women classified as low risk at labor onset according to their planned place of birth (intention-to-treat analysis). The primary outcome was the rate of operative deliveries (vacuum or forceps extraction or cesarean section). RESULTS: Women at low risk who planned to give birth, and therefore labored and delivered in secondary care, had a significantly higher rate of operative deliveries than women who began labor in primary care where they intended to give birth (18% [3,558/19,850] vs 9% [7,803/87,187]) (OR 2.25, 95% CI 2.00-2.52). For cesarean section, the rates were 12 percent (2,419/19,850) versus 3 percent (2,990/87,817) (OR 3.97, 95% CI 3.15-5.01), irrespective of parity. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of operative deliveries was significantly lower for low-risk pregnant women who gave birth in a primary care setting compared with similar women who planned birth in secondary care. As with any retrospective analysis, it was not possible to eliminate bias, such as possible differences between primary and secondary care in assignment of risk status. In addition, known risk factors for interventions, technologies such as induction of labor and fetal monitoring, are only available in secondary care. These findings clearly demonstrate the need for a prospective study to examine the relationship between planned place of birth and mode of delivery and neonatal and maternal outcomes.