Predictors of the return to work for pregnant employees on preventive leave: Patients from an occupational medicine consultation in Switzerland.

According to the Swiss legislation on maternity protection in the workplace (OProMa), if pregnant workers are exposed to occupational hazards and no protective measures are taken, a gynecologist will prescribe a certificate of preventive leave and the women must stop working. Returning to work is only possible if job adjustments are made. This study aims to evaluate the burden of absences on companies and to examine the predictors of the return to work for pregnant workers on preventive leave, by examining both the probability of return to work and the time required to return to work. The study sample includes data on 258 workplaces of pregnant workers on preventive leave, collected during an occupational medicine consultation aimed at supporting the implementation of the OProMa. Information is available on the worker (age, date of consultation), the hazards to which she is exposed, the company's knowledge of the OProMa and whether a risk analysis exists. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analysis are carried out. In 58% of the workplaces, it was not possible to return to work before the end of the pregnancy. This corresponds to an average absence of 4.5 months. In 42% of the workplaces, a return to work was possible thanks to workplace adaptations. A conforming risk analysis and a full knowledge of the OProMa for companies, and an early visit to the occupational medicine consultation for workers are good predictors of the likelihood of returning to work. Younger age and exposure to certain types of risks are factors that influence the duration of preventive leave. The implementation of OProMa in Switzerland poses serious challenges, but early identification of occupational hazards and practices that anticipate compliance with the law in the company increase the return to work in safety for pregnant workers.

A narrative review on factors associated with job interruption during pregnancy.

Most women continue to work during pregnancy. However, some of them have to stop working before giving birth. Absence from work poses several challenges for employers and employees, as well as for society. The literature on absence from work during pregnancy and its determinants remains inconsistent and rather scarce. To conduct a narrative literature review on the factors associated with work interruption and on existing interventions aimed at reducing the absence prevalence during pregnancy. The review refers to published peer-reviewed articles dealing with all types of work interruption among pregnant women. Keyword searches were performed in the electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, covering the period 2000-2022. The review, which includes 42 papers, presents a broad and comprehensive picture of factors and interventions associated with absence from work among pregnant workers. The factors appear at different levels and include factors related to the pregnant women, such as individual health and socio-demographic factors; employer and workplace-related factors, such as risk exposures and working conditions; factors related to the role of the healthcare provider; and factors related to the national context (social benefits/insurance). The determinants of absence from work during pregnancy are complex and multifactorial and involve multiple stakeholders. The discussion addresses gaps and needs in the literature on pregnancy at work and in the field of occupational health. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2023;36(3):303-23.

Quality of maternal and newborn care in Switzerland during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study based on WHO quality standards.

OBJECTIVE: To explore quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) in healthcare facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland. METHODS: Women giving birth in Switzerland answered a validated online questionnaire including 40 WHO standards-based quality measures. QMNC score was calculated according to linguistic region and mode of birth. Differences were assessed using logistic regression analysis adjusting for relevant variables. RESULTS: A total of 1175 women were included in the analysis. Limitations in QMNC during the pandemic were reported by 328 (27.9%) women. Several quality measures, such as deficient communication (18.0%, n = 212), insufficient number of healthcare professionals (19.7%, n = 231), no information on the newborn after cesarean (26.5%, n = 91) or maternal and newborn danger signs (34.1%, n = 401 and 41.4% n = 487, respectively) suggested preventable gaps in QMNC. Quality measures significantly differed by linguistic region and mode of birth. Multivariate analysis established a significantly lower QMNC for women in French- and Italian-speaking regions compared with the German-speaking region. Moreover, in several quality indicators reflecting communication with healthcare providers, women who did not answer the questionnaire in one of the Swiss national languages had significantly worse scores than others. A significant lower QMNC was also found for young and primiparous women and for those who experienced cesarean or instrumental vaginal birth. CONCLUSION: Women giving birth in Switzerland during the pandemic reported notable gaps in QMNC. Providers should be attuned to women who are younger, primiparous, and those who had an emergency cesarean or instrumental vaginal birth given the lower QMNC reported by these groups. Women who did not respond in a Swiss national language may need improved communication strategies.

Rates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean and quality of maternal and newborn health care in private versus public facilities: Results of the IMAgiNE EURO study in 16 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic by facility type among 16 European countries, comparing rates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean. METHODS: Women who gave birth in the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020, to February 7, 2022, answered a validated online questionnaire. Rates of instrumental birth, instrumental vaginal birth, and cesarean, and a QMNC index were calculated for births in public versus private facilities. RESULTS: Responses from 25 206 participants were analyzed. Women giving birth in private compared with public facilities reported significantly more frequent total cesarean (32.5% vs 19.0%; aOR 1.70; 95% CI 1.52-1.90), elective cesarean (17.3% vs 7.8%; aOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.65-2.19), and emergency cesarean before labor (7.4% vs 3.9%; aOR 1.39; 95% CI 1.14-1.70) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons), with analyses by country confirming these results. QMNC index results were heterogeneous across countries and regions in the same country and were largely affected by geographical distribution of regions rather than by type of facility alone. CONCLUSION: The study confirms that births in private facilities have higher odds of cesarean. It also suggests that QMNC should be closely monitored in all facilities to achieve high-quality care, independent of facility type or geographical distribution. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04847336.

Individual and country-level variables associated with the medicalization of birth: Multilevel analyses of IMAgiNE EURO data from 15 countries in the WHO European region.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate potential associations between individual and country-level factors and medicalization of birth in 15 European countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Online anonymous survey of women who gave birth in 2020-2021. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression models estimating associations between indicators of medicalization (cesarean, instrumental vaginal birth [IVB], episiotomy, fundal pressure) and proxy variables related to care culture and contextual factors at the individual and country level. RESULTS: Among 27 173 women, 24.4% (n = 6650) had a cesarean and 8.8% (n = 2380) an IVB. Among women with IVB, 41.9% (n = 998) reported receiving fundal pressure. Among women with spontaneous vaginal births, 22.3% (n = 4048) had an episiotomy. Less respectful care, as perceived by the women, was associated with higher levels of medicalization. For example, women who reported having a cesarean, IVB, or episiotomy reported not feeling treated with dignity more frequently than women who did not have those interventions (odds ratio [OR] 1.37; OR 1.61; OR 1.51, respectively; all: P < 0.001). Country-level variables contributed to explaining some of the variance between countries. CONCLUSION: We recommend a greater emphasis in health policies on promotion of respectful and patient-centered care approaches to birth to enhance women's experiences of care, and the development of a European-level indicator to monitor medicalization of reproductive care.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternity services in Europe: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will synthesize and integrate the best available evidence on the changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in access to and the provision of maternity services in Europe. The review will also consider health care professionals' experiences in providing maternity care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. INTRODUCTION: Governments and maternity services have introduced various protective sanitary and organizational measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and protect the global population, including health care professionals. Since March 2020, the number of publications on this topic has soared, yet little is known about the effect of the pandemic and the accompanying measures on access to and the provision of maternity care in Europe. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will consider quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies on the impact of COVID-19 on European maternity services. For the quantitative component, the review will consider studies evaluating maternity services outcomes across all types of maternity care settings. For the qualitative component, the review will consider studies exploring maternity health care providers' experiences and perceptions of the impact of the pandemic on care provided to women and their babies. METHODS: Six bibliographic databases will be searched for published and unpublished studies since March 2020. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will follow JBI's segregated mixed methods approach. The quantitative component will be adapted to follow the JBI requirements for systematic reviews of etiology and risk. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021283878.

Evaluation of a pilot consultation for maternity protection at work in Switzerland.

STUDY AIMS: Switzerland's Labour Law and its Ordonnance on Maternity Protection aim to protect the health of pregnant employees and their unborn children while enabling them to continue to pursue their professional activities. Some companies encounter difficulties implementing the law's provisions. The Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, part of the Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), has provided specialist occupational medicine consultations for pregnant employees since 2015. This study aimed to evaluate how well Swiss' maternity protection legislation is implemented by examining a list of relevant indicators measured during the occupational health consultation. The study also sought to investigate the consultation support provided to the relevant stakeholders and the adjustments made to pregnant employees' working conditions. METHODS: Descriptive variables and indicators relative to the application of the Swiss maternity protection legislation for 83 pregnant employees were collected during the consultation's pilot phase (between 2015 and 2016). Descriptive statistics and cross-analyses of these indicators were made. RESULTS: Most pregnant employees faced multiple exposures to occupational risks. Preventive risk analyses were rare. Few adjustments to workstations were proposed. We found a tendency for employees to leave their workstations early on in their pregnancies due to sick leave certificate prescriptions. Specialist consultation and collaboration with occupational health physicians to recommend interventions for pregnant employees can provide significant benefits and help some pregnant women to continue at their workstations with appropriate adjustments. DISCUSSION: A specialised occupational health consultation is a useful instrument for identifying occupational hazards for both the pregnant woman and her unborn child. It is also an opportunity to explain employers' legal responsibilities and obligations to safeguard the health of their pregnant employees and to give specific advice for their company's situation. This consultation also enables employers to maintain their employees' valuable professional competencies in the workplace for as long as possible. Finally, occupational health consultation helps and supports healthcare providers who must, according to the law, make decisions about whether pregnant employees can continue working safely or not.

[Protection of pregnant and breastfeeding workers in Switzerland: a practical guide]. / Protection des travailleuses enceintes et allaitantes en Suisse : guide pratique.

Specific working conditions may endanger pregnant women's and their children's health. Switzerland has specific legislation for the protection of pregnant and breastfeeding employees. However, the implementation of these provisions presents important shortcomings. Attending physicians or gynaecologists-obstetricians who care for pregnant women have a central role in controlling the efficacy of protective measures put in place for their patients at work. What are the occupational exposures at risk and their health impact ? What are the collaboration with the different actors involved in the protection of maternity at work ? What steps should be taken if occupational dangers are identified? What tools can be used ? This article answers and explore these questions.

Certaines conditions de travail peuvent nuire à la santé des femmes enceintes et de leurs enfants. La Suisse dispose d'une législation spécifique pour la protection des employées enceintes et allaitantes. Or, l'application de ces dispositions est lacunaire. Les médecins traitants ou les gynécologues-obstétriciens qui suivent des femmes enceintes ont un rôle central dans le contrôle d'efficacité des mesures de protection prises pour leurs patientes au travail. Quels sont les expositions professionnelles à risque et leur impact sanitaire ? Quelles sont les collaborations avec les différents acteurs impliqués dans la protection de la maternité au travail ? Quelles démarches entreprendre en cas d'identification de dangers ? Quels outils peuvent être utilisés ? Cet article permet de répondre à ces questions et de les approfondir.

Midwives and protection of pregnant workers in Western Switzerland: Practices, difficulties and contributions.

BACKGROUND: Switzerland's maternity protection legislation aims to protect the health of pregnant employees and their unborn children by regulating their potential occupational exposure to hazards and strenuous activities. This legislation provides a role for obstetricians, but not for midwives. AIMS: Identify the practices of Switzerland's French-speaking midwives that favour the implementation of maternity protection legislation and reflect on the profession's role in supporting pregnant employees. METHODS: 356 midwives answered an online questionnaire. The analysis focuses on the 205 midwives who perform pregnancy consultations in their practice. Data were analysed in two stages using STATA software: 1) simple descriptive and correlational statistics and 2) hierarchical cluster analysis to identify typologies of practices by grouping similar responses. FINDINGS: Despite having no officially defined role in Switzerland's maternity protection legislation, its midwives actively participate in protecting pregnant employees , especially those with more knowledge of the legislation, those with more years of experience and those practicing independently. The barriers that midwives face when trying to provide greater support for pregnant employees are linked significantly to their lack of knowledge about the legislation, a lack of recognition for their role in the current legislation and a lack of continuing education about the occupational health risks associated with pregnancy at work. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Their profession and specific practices give midwives privileged access to pregnant employees. Midwives' knowledge of the legislation, their awareness of the occupational risks and hazards facing pregnant employees and the conviction that their profession has the potential to make a difference could all be improved. The role of midwives should be-and deserves to be-formally and legally recognised and integrated into Switzerland's maternity protection legislation.

Evolution of gynaecologists' practices regarding the implementation of Swiss legislation on maternity protection at work between 2008 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: In accordance with the International Labour Organization’s Maternity Protection Convention (No. 183) and European Union Directive 92/857CEE (1992), Switzerland’s Labour Law and its Maternity Protection Ordinance (OProMa) aim to protect the health of pregnant employees and their future children while enabling them to pursue their working activities. Gynaecologists-obstetricians have a key role in this legislation, particularly through the prescription of preventive leave for patients who would otherwise face dangerous or arduous tasks in the absence of an adequate risk analysis or suitable protective measures. However, international and national literature suggests that gynaecologists-obstetricians may encounter difficulties in fulfilling their role. AIMS: This study aimed to: (1) describe the practices and difficulties encountered by gynaecologists-obstetricians in the practical implementation of the OProMa; and (2) compare the evolution of these practices and difficulties between 2008 and 2017. METHODS: A survey by questionnaire was conducted in 2008 and repeated in 2017. Both surveys focused on gynaecologists-obstetricians working in the French-speaking part of Switzerland (in private practices, hospitals or both). Descriptive and comparative analyses were carried out. RESULTS: 83 gynaecologists-obstetricians responded in 2008 and 93 in 2017: response rates of 47% and 32%, respectively. In 2017, gynaecologists-obstetricians were more likely to ask questions about occupational risks faced by their patients when consulted by working mothers about their pregnancies. The estimated percentage of patients exposed to an occupational risk remained constant (20% in 2008 and 22% in 2017). Communication and collaboration with employers were reported to be difficult in both surveys, even though these are key elements in the implementation of the OProMa. Collaboration with occupational physicians, however, was more frequent in 2017. CONCLUSION: In 2017, gynaecologists-obstetricians showed a greater awareness of occupational risks and collaborated more frequently with occupational health specialists. However, the application of the OProMa remained limited over the studied time period. Improving training of gynaecologists-obstetricians in this field could be a significant factor in encouraging better implementation of the current legislation. Moreover, gynaecologists-obstetricians need to be given the necessary support to enable their clinical practice to evolve towards a more preventive type of medicine. Collaboration with relevant stakeholders, including occupational physicians, midwives and workers, should be encouraged.

Implementation of the Swiss ordinance on maternity protection at work in companies in French-speaking Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Switzerland's Ordinance on Maternity Protection at Work (OProMa) requires that companies take the necessary measures to ensure that pregnant employees can continue working without danger. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent of compliance with OProMa within companies in French-speaking Switzerland as well as factors which facilitate and obstruct the ordinance's implementation. METHODS: A stratified random telephone survey of 202 companies from the healthcare and food industry was conducted. Descriptive and correlational statistics were calculated. Responses to open questions were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Only a minority of companies performed risk analyses or adapted employees' workstations, as per the legislation. OProMa was implemented more effectively in larger companies than smaller ones, in public rather than private ones, in the healthcare sector rather than the food industry, and when the person responsible for the wellbeing of pregnant employees within the company had undergone specific training on the subject. Data extrapolation suggested that only 2% of pregnant employees in French-speaking Switzerland's food industry and 12% in its healthcare sector are properly protected according to OProMa's provisions. CONCLUSIONS: Maternity protection in French-speaking Switzerland's companies urgently requires improvement. In addition to the apparent need for stronger incentives and for monitoring of companies, our findings indicate a need to provide them with resources to meet OProMa's provisions.

Implementation of maternity protection legislation: Gynecologists' perceptions and practices in French-speaking Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: In several countries, maternity protection legislations (MPL) confer an essential role to gynecologist-obstetricians (OBGYNs) for the protection of pregnant workers and their future children from occupational exposures. This study explores OBGYNs' practices and difficulties in implementing MPL in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. METHODS: An online survey was sent to 333 OBGYNs. Data analysis included: 1) descriptive and correlational statistics and 2) hierarchical cluster analysis to identify patterns of practices. RESULTS: OBGYNs evoked several problems in MPL implementation: absence of risk analysis in the companies, difficult collaboration with employers, lack of competencies in the field of occupational health. Preventive leave was underused, with sick leave being prescribed instead. Training had a positive effect on OBGYNs' knowledge and implementation of MPL. Hierarchical cluster analysis highlighted three main types of practices: 1) practice in line with legislation; 2) practice on a case-by-case basis; 3) limited practice. OBGYNs with good knowledge of MPL more consistently applied its provisions. CONCLUSION: The implementation of MPL appears challenging for OBGYNs. Collaboration with occupational physicians and training might help OBGYNs to better take on their role in maternity protection. MPL in itself could be improved.