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.

Quality of maternal and newborn care around the time of childbirth for migrant versus nonmigrant women during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of the IMAgiNE EURO study in 11 countries of the WHO European region.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the perception of quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) around the time of childbirth among migrant and nonmigrant women in Europe. METHODS: Women who gave birth at a health facility in 11 countries of the WHO European Region from March 2020 to July 2021 were invited to answer an online questionnaire including demographics and childbirth experience. Data were analyzed and compared for 1781 migrant and 20 653 nonmigrant women. RESULTS: Migrant women who experienced labor perceived slightly more difficulties in attending routine antenatal visits (41.2% vs 39.4%; P = 0.001), more barriers in accessing facilities (32.9% vs 29.9%; P = 0.001), lack of timely care (14.7% vs 13.0%; P = 0.025), inadequate room comfort and equipment (9.2% vs 8.5%; P = 0.004), inadequate number of women per room (9.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.039), being prevented from staying with their baby as they wished (7.8% vs 6.9%; P = 0.011), or suffering abuse (14.5% vs 12.7%; P = 0.022) compared with nonmigrant women. For women who had a prelabor cesarean, migrant women were more likely not to receive pain relief after birth (16.8% vs.13.5%; P = 0.039) and less likely to provide informal payment (1.8% vs 4.4%; P = 0.005) compared with nonmigrant women. Overall, the QMNC index was not significantly different for migrant compared with nonmigrant women. CONCLUSION: Gaps in overall QMNC were reported by both migrant and nonmigrant women, with improvements to healthcare necessary for all.

Les violences gynécologiques et obstétricales : construction d'une question politique et de santé publique.

The concept of “gynecological and obstetric violence”, which emerged in the early 2000s in Latin America in activist and scientific circles, has been debated since the 2010s in French and European feminist and political circles. We show here how this concept is defined, what realities and practices it covers and by whom and in what context it is used in the public space in France and internationally, and in academic research. This concept allows for a new approach to medical care in gynecology and obstetrics that takes into account the experiences, both objective and subjective, of women and medical practices that are now technical, sometimes impersonal and disrespectful. Although there is a growing body of work in the social sciences that uses this conceptual approach, it focuses more on childbirth and less on strictly gynecological medical care.

Quality of facility-based maternal and newborn care around the time of childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic: online survey investigating maternal perspectives in 12 countries of the WHO European Region.

BACKGROUND: Multi-country studies assessing the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, as defined by WHO Standards, are lacking. METHODS: Women who gave birth in 12 countries of the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020 - March 15, 2021 answered an online questionnaire, including 40 WHO Standard-based Quality Measures. FINDINGS: 21,027 mothers were included in the analysis. Among those who experienced labour (N=18,063), 41·8% (26·1%- 63·5%) experienced difficulties in accessing antenatal care, 62% (12·6%-99·0%) were not allowed a companion of choice, 31·1% (16·5%-56·9%) received inadequate breastfeeding support, 34·4% (5·2%-64·8%) reported that health workers were not always using protective personal equipment, and 31·8% (17·8%-53·1%) rated the health workers' number as "insufficient". Episiotomy was performed in 20·1% (6·1%-66·0%) of spontaneous vaginal births and fundal pressure applied in 41·2% (11·5% -100%) of instrumental vaginal births. In addition, 23·9% women felt they were not treated with dignity (12·8%-59·8%), 12·5% (7·0%-23·4%) suffered abuse, and 2·4% (0·1%-26·2%) made informal payments. Most findings were significantly worse among women with prelabour caesarean birth (N=2,964). Multivariate analyses confirmed significant differences among countries, with Croatia, Romania, Serbia showing significant lower QMNC Indexes and Luxemburg showing a significantly higher QMNC Index than the total sample. Younger women and those with operative births also reported significantly lower QMNC Indexes. INTERPRETATION: Mothers reports revealed large inequities in QMNC across countries of the WHO European Region. Quality improvement initiatives to reduce these inequities and promote evidence-based, patient-centred respectful care for all mothers and newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond are urgently needed. FUNDING: The study was financially supported by the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04847336.

The social paradoxes of commercial surrogacy in developing countries: India before the new law of 2018.

BACKGROUND: Commercial surrogacy is a highly controversial issue that leads to heated debates in the feminist literature, especially when surrogacy takes place in developing countries and when it is performed by local women for wealthy international individuals. The objective of this article is to confront common assumptions with the narratives and experiences described by Indian surrogates themselves. METHODS: This qualitative study included 33 surrogates interviewed in India (Mumbai, Chennai and New Delhi) who were at different stages of the surrogacy process. They were recruited through five clinics and agencies. This 2-year field study was conducted before the 2018 surrogacy law. RESULTS: Surrogates met the criteria fixed by the national guidelines in terms of age and marital and family situation. The commitment to surrogacy had generally been decided with the husband. Its aim was above all to improve the socioeconomic condition of the family. Women described surrogacy as offering better conditions than their previous paid activity. They had clear views on the child and their work. However, they declared that they faced difficulties and social condemnation as surrogacy is associated with extra-marital relationships. They also described a medical process in which they had no autonomy although they did not express complaints. Overall, surrogates did not portray themselves as vulnerable women and victims, but rather as mothers and spouses taking control of their destiny. CONCLUSIONS: The reality of surrogacy in India embraces antagonistic features that we analyze in this paper as "paradoxes". First, while women have become surrogates in response to gender constraints as mothers and wives, yet in so doing they have gone against gender norms. Secondly, while surrogacy was socially perceived as dirty work undertaken in order to survive, surrogates used surrogacy as a means to upward mobility for themselves and their children. Finally, while surrogacy was organized to counteract accusations of exploitation, surrogates were under constant domination by the medical system and had no decision-making power in the surrogacy process. This echoes their daily life as women. Although the Indian legal framework has changed, surrogacy still challenges gender norms, particularly in other developing countries where the practice is emerging.

Sociodemographic characteristics of 96 Indian surrogates: Are they disadvantaged compared with the general population?

Commercial surrogacy in emerging countries such as India is often associated with exploitation of vulnerable women, the assumption being that it is performed by poor and uneducated women for rich intended parents. However, the hypothesis that surrogates are poor women has rarely been confronted with field data. The objective was to compare the socioeconomic characteristics of Indian surrogates interviewed in social studies with those of Indian women in the general population in order to provide preliminary data on whether surrogates have a specific profile and are indeed disadvantaged compared with their counterparts. The study analyzes the data from four cross-sectional studies carried out in India among surrogates between 2006 and 2014. Surrogates were recruited through clinics, agencies and agents. Data were collected during face-to-face interviews. The resulting convenience sample included 96 Indian surrogates. Their sociodemographic characteristics were compared with those of the general population extracted from Indian national surveys. The surrogates interviewed had their first child at a younger age than women in the general population, but they tended to have a smaller family. Their social situation tended to be better than that of the general population in terms of education, employment and family income. These results provide first empirical evidence moderating the common assumption that Indian surrogates are the poorest and least educated women. This does not mean, however, that exploitation does not exist. More studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore the issue in new international destinations for surrogacy.