A global review of the inferred meaning of woman centred care within midwifery professional standards.

BACKGROUND: As an integral and guiding approach, woman centred care is well-grounded as the cornerstone of midwifery training and practice. A previous global review established that the concept, even though acknowledged as pivotal, has limited attention within the professional standards documents that underpin the discipline [1]. Whilst not detracting from the overall importance of woman centred care, it is further suggested that a broader meaning is generally being implied. OBJECTIVE: Whether other related inferences and meanings of the actual term 'woman centred care' are also being utilised, has not yet been established. Therefore, this review of professional documents sought to investigate the occurrence of further depictions of the concept. METHODS: With an implied and inferred meaning of 'woman centred care' as the focus, a review and synthesis of narrative from a global sample of midwifery professional standards was conducted. The principles of meta-ethnography were utilised to develop a qualitative approach. Rather than the actual words 'woman centred care' further phrases implying or inferring the concept were sought. 'A priori' phrases were developed and narrative and examples were synthesised for each. FINDINGS: Standards and governance documents were located from within Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand and a further 139 nations. Overall, the seven phrases, each considered as an inference to woman centred care, were all substantiated. As a proportion of all documents, these were collated with the outcomes being a woman's right to choice (89%), being culturally sensitive (80.5%), a woman's voice and right to be heard (78%), the woman as an individual (68%), universal human rights (40%), being holistic (39%) and being self-determined (17.5%). CONCLUSION: The outcomes of this review demonstrate that woman centred care may be a multidimensional concept. There were occurrences of all seven phrases across a broad scope of global professional midwifery documents, and each can be shown through its meaning to contribute something to an understanding of woman centred care. The creation of a universal meaning is recommended.

Towards a conceptualisation of woman centred care - A global review of professional standards.

BACKGROUND: Woman centred care is purported to underpin Midwifery philosophy. However, the evidence and focus of this concept within midwifery professional standards has yet to be verified. Further to this, woman centred care is, at this time, mostly depicted as a way of assisting, supporting and interacting with a woman and her family. It is however, without a substantive universally accepted definition. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review midwifery standards documents. An organised and targeted methodology was conducted to identify the approaches to woman centred care that currently underpin midwifery governance. METHODS: A comprehensive and specific search for 'woman centred care' was conducted across a global collection of midwifery standards. A professional document was included if it represented either or all of the underpinnings of midwifery education, contained statements related to standards of practice, overall governance or any equivalence. Individual documents were initially searched for the words 'woman centred care', followed by 'women centred care', 'patient/person centred care' and 'client centred care'. FINDINGS: An extensive review of 142 documents was undertaken. These included: thirty independent nations, thirty represented by the European Midwives Association and a further twenty-one identified through the International Confederation of Midwives (ICM). The World Health Organisation (WHO), yielded midwifery information from a further sixty-one nations. The phrase 'woman centred care' was located within 3.5% of the documents reviewed. Overall, five examples were found that directly referred to the actual phrase 'woman centred care' and one to the use of 'person centred care'. Therefore, it was established, that at the time of this review, there was limited formal depiction of the concept of woman centred care.

Interventions for preventing mastitis after childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision to wean; the main reason cited for weaning is associated with lactation complications, such as mastitis. Mastitis is an inflammation of the breast, with or without infection. It can be viewed as a continuum of disease, from non-infective inflammation of the breast to infection that may lead to abscess formation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of preventive strategies (for example, breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies) on the occurrence or recurrence of non-infective or infective mastitis in breastfeeding women post-childbirth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing mastitis in postpartum breastfeeding women. Quasi-randomised controlled trials and trials reported only in abstract form were eligible. We attempted to contact the authors to obtain any unpublished results, wherever possible.  Interventions for preventing mastitis may include: probiotics, specialist breastfeeding advice and holistic approaches.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (3034 women). Nine trials (2395 women) contributed data. Generally, the trials were at low risk of bias in most domains but some were high risk for blinding, attrition bias, and selective reporting. Selection bias (allocation concealment) was generally unclear. The certainty of evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and to imprecision (low numbers of women participating in the trials). Conflicts of interest on the part of trial authors, and the involvement of industry funders may also have had an impact on the certainty of the evidence. Most trials reported our primary outcome of incidence of mastitis but there were almost no data relating to adverse effects, breast pain, duration of breastfeeding, nipple damage, breast abscess or recurrence of mastitis. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may reduce the risk of mastitis more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.75; 2 trials; 399 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if probiotics reduce the risk of breast pain or nipple damage because the certainty of evidence is very low. Results for the biggest of these trials (639 women) are currently unavailable due to a contractual agreement between the probiotics supplier and the trialists. Adverse effects were reported in one trial, where no woman in either group experienced any adverse effects. Antibiotics versus placebo or usual care The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and usual care or placebo (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.34; 3 trials; 429 women; low-certainty evidence). The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and fusidic acid ointment (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.81; 1 trial; 36 women; low-certainty evidence) or mupirocin ointment (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.89; 1 trial; 44 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. None of the trials reported adverse effects. Topical treatments versus breastfeeding advice The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.22; 1 trial; 40 women; low-certainty evidence) and mupirocin ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; 1 trial; 48 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. One trial (42 women) compared topical treatments to each other. The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid and mupirocin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.00; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Specialist breastfeeding education versus usual care The risk of mastitis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.95; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.37; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Anti-secretory factor-inducing cereal versus standard cereal The risk of mastitis (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72; 1 trial; 29 women; low-certainty evidence) and recurrence of mastitis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.57; 1 trial; 7 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Acupoint massage versus routine care Acupoint massage probably reduces the risk of mastitis compared to routine care (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78;1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; 1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment versus routine care Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may reduce risk of mastitis (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 1 trial; 300 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that acupoint massage is probably better than routine care, probiotics may be better than placebo, and breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may be better than routine care for preventing mastitis. However, it is important to note that we are aware of at least one large trial investigating probiotics whose results have not been made public, therefore, the evidence presented here is incomplete. The available evidence regarding other interventions, including breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies, suggests these may be little better than routine care for preventing mastitis but our conclusions are uncertain due to the low certainty of the evidence. Future trials should recruit sufficiently large numbers of women in order to detect clinically important differences between interventions and results of future trials should be made publicly available.

Interventions for preventing mastitis after childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision to wean; the main reason cited for weaning is associated with lactation complications, such as mastitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preventive strategies for mastitis and the subsequent effect on breastfeeding duration. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (8 August 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing mastitis in postpartum breastfeeding women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently identified relevant studies and assessed the trial quality. We contacted trial authors for missing data and information as appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (involving 960 women). In three trials of 471 women, we found no significant differences in the incidence of mastitis between use of antibiotics and no antibiotics (risk ratio (RR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 1.61; or in one trial of 99 women comparing two doses (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.02 to 9.18). We found no significant differences for mastitis in three trials of specialist breastfeeding education with usual care (one trial); anti-secretory factor cereal (one trial); and mupirocin, fusidic acid ointment or breastfeeding advice (one trial).Generally we found no differences in any of the trials for breastfeeding initiation or duration; or symptoms of mastitis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to show effectiveness of any of the interventions, including breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies, regarding the occurrence of mastitis or breastfeeding exclusivity and duration. While studies reported the incidence of mastitis, they all used different interventions. Caution needs to be applied when considering the findings of this review as the conclusion is based on studies, often with small sample sizes. An urgent need for further adequately powered research is needed into this area to conclusively determine the effectiveness of these interventions.

Interventions for preventing mastitis after childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision to wean; the main reason cited for weaning is associated with lactation complications, such as mastitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preventive strategies for mastitis and the subsequent effect on breastfeeding duration. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2009), EMBASE (1974 to November 2009), CINAHL (1981 to November 2009), MIDIRS (1971 to November 2009), IPA (1970 to November 2009), AMED (1985 to November 2009) and LILACS (1982 to November 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing mastitis in postpartum breastfeeding women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently identified relevant studies and assessed the trial quality. We contacted trial authors for missing data and information as appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (involving 960 women). In three trials of 471 women, we found no significant differences in the incidence of mastitis between use of antibiotics and no antibiotics (risk ratio (RR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 1.61; or in one trial of 99 women comparing two doses (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.02 to 9.18). We found no significant differences for mastitis in three trials of specialist breastfeeding education with usual care (one trial); anti-secretory factor cereal (one trial); and mupirocin, fusidic acid ointment or breastfeeding advice (one trial).Generally we found no differences in any of the trials for breastfeeding initiation or duration; or symptoms of mastitis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to show effectiveness of any of the interventions, including breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies, regarding the occurrence of mastitis or breastfeeding exclusivity and duration. While studies reported the incidence of mastitis, they all used different interventions. Caution needs to be applied when considering the findings of this review as the conclusion is based on studies, often with small sample sizes. An urgent need for further adequately powered research is needed into this area to conclusively determine the effectiveness of these interventions.

An evaluation of a telephone-based postnatal support intervention for infant feeding in a regional Australian city.

BACKGROUND: Postnatal breastfeeding support in the form of home visits is difficult to accommodate in regional Australia, where hospitals often deal with harsh economic constraints in a context where they are required to provide services to geographically dispersed consumers. This study evaluated a predominantly telephone-based support service called the Infant Feeding Support Service. METHODS: A prospective cohort design was used to compare data for 696 women giving birth in two regional hospitals (one public, one private) and participating in the support service between January and July 2003 with data from a cohort of 625 women who gave birth in those hospitals before the introduction of the support service. Each mother participating in the support service was assigned a lactation consultant. First contact occurred 48 hours after discharge, and approximately weekly thereafter for 4 weeks. Breastfeeding duration was measured at 3 months postpartum. RESULTS: For women from the private hospital, the support service improved exclusive breastfeeding duration to 4.5 weeks postpartum, but these improvements were not evident at 3 months postpartum. No effects were observed for mothers from the public hospital. Quantitative and qualitative data demonstrated high levels of client satisfaction with the support service. CONCLUSIONS: This small-scale, predominantly telephone-based intervention provided significant, although apparently context-sensitive, improvements to exclusive breastfeeding duration.