A research agenda to improve incidence and outcomes of assisted vaginal birth.

Access to emergency obstetric care, including assisted vaginal birth and caesarean birth, is crucial for improving maternal and childbirth outcomes. However, although the proportion of births by caesarean section has increased during the last few decades, the use of assisted vaginal birth has declined. This is particularly the case in low- and middle-income countries, despite an assisted vaginal birth often being less risky than caesarean birth. We therefore conducted a three-step process to identify a research agenda necessary to increase the use of, or reintroduce, assisted vaginal birth: after conducting an evidence synthesis, which informed a consultation with technical experts who proposed an initial research agenda, we sought and incorporated the views of women's representatives of this agenda. This process has allowed us to identify a comprehensive research agenda, with topics categorized as: (i) the need to understand women's perceptions of assisted vaginal birth, and provide appropriate and reliable information; (ii) the importance of training health-care providers in clinical skills but also in respectful care, effective communication, shared decision-making and informed consent; and (iii) the barriers to and facilitators of implementation and sustainability. From women's feedback, we learned of the urgent need to recognize labour, childbirth and postpartum experiences as inherently physiological and dignified human processes, in which interventions should only be implemented if necessary. The promotion and/or reintroduction of assisted vaginal birth in low-resource settings requires governments, policy-makers and hospital administrators to support skilled health-care providers who can, in turn, respectfully support women in labour and childbirth.

L'accès aux soins obstétriques d'urgence, y compris l'accouchement vaginal assisté et la césarienne, est essentiel pour améliorer les effets de la maternité et de l'accouchement. Toutefois, bien que la proportion de césariennes ait augmenté ces dernières décennies, le recours à l'accouchement vaginal assisté a diminué. C'est particulièrement le cas dans les pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire, bien que l'accouchement vaginal assisté soit souvent moins risqué qu'une césarienne. Nous avons donc mené un processus en trois étapes afin d'imaginer un programme de recherche qui permettrait d'augmenter le recours à l'accouchement vaginal assisté ou de le réintroduire. Après avoir réalisé une synthèse des données probantes, qui a servi de base à une consultation avec des experts techniques qui ont proposé un programme de recherche initial, nous avons sollicité et incorporé les avis des représentantes des femmes pour ce programme. Ce processus nous a permis d'imaginer un programme de recherche complet, avec des sujets classés comme suit: (i) la nécessité de comprendre la perception qu'ont les femmes de l'accouchement vaginal assisté et de fournir des informations appropriées et fiables; (ii) l'importance de la formation des prestataires de soins de santé en matière de compétences cliniques, mais aussi de respect dans les soins de santé, de communication efficace, de prise de décision partagée et de consentement éclairé; ou (iii) les obstacles à la mise en œuvre et à la durabilité et les facteurs qui les facilitent. Les réactions de femmes nous ont appris qu'il était urgent de reconnaître que l'accouchement, la naissance et le post-partum sont des processus humains intrinsèquement physiologiques et dignes au cours desquels les interventions ne devraient être mises en œuvre qu'en cas de nécessité. La promotion et/ou la réintroduction de l'accouchement vaginal assisté dans les régions à faibles ressources nécessitent que les pouvoirs publics, les décideurs politiques et les administrations d'hôpitaux soutiennent les prestataires de soins de santé qualifiés, qui pourront à leur tour soutenir respectueusement les femmes pendant l'accouchement.

El acceso a la atención obstétrica de emergencia, incluido el parto vaginal asistido y el parto por cesárea, es crucial para mejorar los resultados de la maternidad y el parto. No obstante, aunque el porcentaje de partos por cesárea ha aumentado en las últimas décadas, el uso del parto vaginal asistido ha disminuido. Esto ocurre especialmente en los países de ingresos bajos y medios, a pesar de que un parto vaginal asistido suele ser menos arriesgado que un parto por cesárea. Por lo tanto, llevamos a cabo un proceso de tres pasos para identificar un programa de investigación necesario para aumentar el uso del parto vaginal asistido o volver a incorporarlo: tras realizar una síntesis de la evidencia, que sirvió de base para una consulta con expertos técnicos que propusieron un programa de investigación inicial, buscamos e integramos las opiniones de las representantes de las mujeres sobre este programa. Este proceso nos ha permitido identificar un programa de investigación exhaustivo, con temas categorizados como: (i) la necesidad de comprender las percepciones de las mujeres sobre el parto vaginal asistido, y proporcionar información adecuada y fiable; (ii) la importancia de formar a los profesionales sanitarios en habilidades clínicas, pero también en atención respetuosa, comunicación efectiva, toma de decisiones compartida y consentimiento informado; o (iii) las barreras y los facilitadores de la implementación y la sostenibilidad. A partir de las opiniones de las mujeres, nos enteramos de la urgente necesidad de reconocer las experiencias del parto, el alumbramiento y el posparto como procesos humanos inherentemente fisiológicos y dignos, en los que las intervenciones solo deben aplicarse si son necesarias. La promoción o la reincoporación del parto vaginal asistido en regiones de escasos recursos exige que los gobiernos, los responsables de formular políticas y los administradores de hospitales apoyen a los profesionales sanitarios capacitados que, a su vez, pueden ayudar a las mujeres en el trabajo de parto y el alumbramiento de manera respetuosa.

Understanding the barriers and facilitators related to birthing pool use from organisational and multi-professional perspectives: a mixed-methods systematic review.

AIMS: To identify and synthesize the evidence regarding the facilitators and barriers relating to birthing pool use from organizational and multi-professional perspectives. DESIGN: A systematic integrated mixed methods review was conducted. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMCARE, PROQUEST and Web of Science databases were searched in April 2021, March 2022 and April 2024. We cross-referenced with Google Scholar and undertook reference list searches. REVIEW METHODS: Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to birthing pool use were mapped and integrated into descriptive statements further synthesized to develop overarching themes. RESULTS: Thirty seven articles (29 studies) were included-quantitative (12), qualitative (8), mixed methods (7), and audits (2), from 12 countries. These included the views of 9,082 multi-professionals (midwives, nurses, obstetricians, neonatologists, students, physicians, maternity support workers, doulas and childbirth educators). Additionally, 285 institutional policies or guidelines were included over 9 papers and 1 economic evaluation. Five themes were generated: The paradox of prescriptiveness, The experienced but elusive practitioner, Advocacy and tensions, Trust or Trepidation and It's your choice, but only if it is a choice. These revealed when personal, contextual, and infrastructural factors were aligned and directed towards the support of birth pool use, birthing pool use was a genuine option. Conversely, the more barriers that women and midwives experienced, the less likely it was a viable option, reducing choice and access to safe analgesia. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrated a paradoxical reality of water immersion with each of the five themes detailing how the "swing" within these factors directly affected whether birthing pool use was facilitated or inhibited.

Assessing safe and personalised maternity and neonatal care through a pandemic: a case study of outcomes and experiences in two trusts in England using the ASPIRE COVID-19 framework.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in profound and far-reaching impacts on maternal and newborn care and outcomes. As part of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, we describe processes and outcome measures relating to safe and personalised maternity care in England which we map against a pre-developed ASPIRE framework to establish the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for two UK trusts. METHODS: We undertook a mixed-methods system-wide case study using quantitative routinely collected data and qualitative data from two Trusts and their service users from 2019 to 2021 (start and completion dates varied by available data). We mapped findings to our prior ASPIRE conceptual framework that explains pathways for the impact of COVID-19 on safe and personalised care. RESULTS: The ASPIRE framework enabled us to develop a comprehensive, systems-level understanding of the impact of the pandemic on service delivery, user experience and staff wellbeing, and place it within the context of pre-existing challenges. Maternity services experienced some impacts on core service coverage, though not on Trust level clinical health outcomes (with the possible exception of readmissions in one Trust). Both users and staff found some pandemic-driven changes challenging such as remote or reduced antenatal and community postnatal contacts, and restrictions on companionship. Other key changes included an increased need for mental health support, changes in the availability and uptake of home birth services and changes in induction procedures. Many emergency adaptations persisted at the end of data collection. Differences between the trusts indicate complex change pathways. Staff reported some removal of bureaucracy, which allowed greater flexibility. During the first wave of COVID-19 staffing numbers increased, resolving some pre-pandemic shortages: however, by October 2021 they declined markedly. Trying to maintain the quality and availability of services had marked negative consequences for personnel. Timely routine clinical and staffing data were not always available and personalised care and user and staff experiences were poorly captured. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 crisis magnified pre-pandemic problems and in particular, poor staffing levels. Maintaining services took a significant toll on staff wellbeing. There is some evidence that these pressures are continuing. There was marked variation in Trust responses. Lack of accessible and timely data at Trust and national levels hampered rapid insights. The ASPIRE COVID-19 framework could be useful for modelling the impact of future crises on routine care.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of midwife-led care for childbearing women in low- and middle-income countries: A mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from high-income countries demonstrate improvements in maternal and neonatal health with midwife-led care. Midwife-led care is pivotal to meet the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. Despite this, successful implementation of midwife-led care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been limited. It is therefore necessary to understand the factors that influence the implementation of midwife-led care. AIM: This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of midwife-led care for childbearing women in LMICs from the perspectives of care recipients, providers and wider stakeholders. METHODS: A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted of primary research studies that expressed the views of those involved in or affected by the implementation of midwife-led care in LMICs. Reporting followed PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Maternity and Infant Care database (MIDIRS), Global Health and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Data was analysed and synthesized using the Supporting the Use of Research Evidence (SURE) framework to identify barriers and enabling factors to implementing midwife-led care. FINDINGS: A total of 31 studies from 21 LMICs were included. At the care recipient level, women need adequate knowledge and confidence about midwife-led care to utilise services. At the care provider level, strengthening midwifery education and practice by employing experienced educators and supervisors is essential. Findings also suggest that increased collaboration between funders, professional organisations, practitioners, communities, and the government is necessary for successful implementation. However, adequate and sustained funding for midwife-led care programs is often lacking and political instability contributes to poor implementation in LMICs. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH: There are several enabling factors which increase the success and sustainability of the midwife-led model of care in LMICs. However, current practice guidelines and strategic frameworks need to better reflect the infrastructure and resource limitations of health settings in LMICs.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth.

OBJECTIVES: Water immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an increasingly popular care option in several countries. It is used particularly by healthy women who experience a straightforward pregnancy, labour spontaneously at term gestation and plan to give birth in a midwifery led care setting. More women are also choosing to give birth in water. There is debate about the safety of intrapartum water immersion, particularly waterbirth. We synthesised the evidence that compared the effect of water immersion during labour or waterbirth on intrapartum interventions and outcomes to standard care with no water immersion. A secondary objective was to synthesise data relating to clinical care practices and birth settings that women experience who immerse in water and women who do not. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Embase, BioMed Central and PsycINFO during March 2020 and was replicated in May 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary quantitative studies published in 2000 or later, examining maternal or neonatal interventions and outcomes using the birthing pool for labour and/or birth. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Full-text screening was undertaken independently against inclusion/exclusion criteria in two pairs. Risk of bias assessment included review of seven domains based on the Robbins-I Risk of Bias Tool. All outcomes were summarised using an OR and 95% CI. All calculations were conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.3, using the inverse variance method. Results of individual studies were converted to log OR and SE for synthesis. Fixed effects models were used when I2 was less than 50%, otherwise random effects models were used. The fail-safe N estimates were calculated to determine the number of studies necessary to change the estimates. Begg's test and Egger's regression risk assessed risk of bias across studies. Trim-and-fill analysis was used to estimate the magnitude of effect of the bias. Meta-regression was completed when at least 10 studies provided data for an outcome. RESULTS: We included 36 studies in the review, (N=157 546 participants). Thirty-one studies were conducted in an obstetric unit setting (n=70 393), four studies were conducted in midwife led settings (n=61 385) and one study was a mixed setting (OU and homebirth) (n=25 768). Midwife led settings included planned home and freestanding midwifery unit (k=1), alongside midwifery units (k=1), planned homebirth (k=1), a freestanding midwifery unit and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1) and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1). For water immersion, 25 studies involved women who planned to have/had a waterbirth (n=151 742), seven involved water immersion for labour only (1901), three studies reported on water immersion during labour and waterbirth (n=3688) and one study was unclear about the timing of water immersion (n=215).Water immersion significantly reduced use of epidural (k=7, n=10 993; OR 0.17 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56), injected opioids (k=8, n=27 391; OR 0.22 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38), episiotomy (k=15, n=36 558; OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27), maternal pain (k=8, n=1200; OR 0.24 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51) and postpartum haemorrhage (k=15, n=63 891; OR 0.69 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). There was an increase in maternal satisfaction (k=6, n=4144; OR 1.95 95% CI 1.28 to 2.96) and odds of an intact perineum (k=17, n=59 070; OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79) with water immersion. Waterbirth was associated with increased odds of cord avulsion (OR 1.94 95% CI 1.30 to 2.88), although the absolute risk remained low (4.3 per 1000 vs 1.3 per 1000). There were no differences in any other identified neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This review endorses previous reviews showing clear benefits resulting from intrapartum water immersion for healthy women and their newborns. While most included studies were conducted in obstetric units, to enable the identification of best practice regarding water immersion, future birthing pool research should integrate factors that are known to influence intrapartum interventions and outcomes. These include maternal parity, the care model, care practices and birth setting. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019147001.

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation. METHODS: The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers. RESULTS: Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion. CONCLUSION: Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

Types, Evidence, and Resources of Interventions Focused on Improving the Psychosocial Well-being of Parents of Premature/Sick Infants: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Parents of infants born premature and/or sick and who require neonatal care are at risk of poor mental health. Currently, there is no comprehensive knowledge about interventions (ie, types, evidence, resources) that have been exclusively designed to improve the psychosocial well-being of this population group. PURPOSE: To undertake a systematic scoping review of interventions focused on improving the psychosocial well-being of parents of sick/premature infants who required neonatal care to identify the ( a ) types of interventions, ( b ) evidence of the interventions, and ( c ) level of resources required to deliver the interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: e searched 7 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Global Index), reviewed references, and followed up key authors. RESULTS: From 10,516 hits, 38 articles met the inclusion criteria (36 different studies/interventions). Studies included creative oriented (n = 11), group/peer support (n = 4), relaxation/mindfulness (n = 3), spiritual/religious (n = 4), psychotherapeutic-based (n = 11), and "other" (n = 3) (eg, sleep, acupuncture). Most had been undertaken in high-income settings with mothers and required varying levels of resources within and between the different intervention types. While some interventions were effective, there was high heterogeneity with similar interventions using different designs, protocols, and outcomes. Most intervention types included studies that highlighted what parents valued (eg, self-care, relaxation, social opportunities). IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Evidence highlights a wide range of potential interventions for nursing and other specialist staff to consider and offers insights into potential mechanisms of effectiveness to underpin future intervention design.

'Stories of distress versus fulfilment': A narrative inquiry of midwives' experiences supporting alternative birth choices in the UK National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Some childbearing women/birthing people prioritize out of maternity care organizational guidelines' approaches to childbirth as a way of optimizing their chances of a normal physiological birth. Currently, there is little known about the experiences of midwives who support their choices. AIM: To explore the experiences of UK midwives employed by the NHS, who self-defined as supportive of women's alternative physiological birthing choices. METHODS: A narrative inquiry was used to collect and analyse professional stories of practice via self-written narratives and interviews. Forty-five midwives from across the UK were recruited. FINDINGS: Three overarching storylines were developed with nine sub-themes. 'Stories of distress' highlights challenging experiences due to poor supportive working environments, ranging from small persistent challenges to extreme situations. Conversely, 'Stories of fulfilment' offers a positive counter-narrative where midwives worked in supportive working environments enabling woman-centred care unencumbered by organisational constraints. 'Stories of transition' abridge these two polarized themes. CONCLUSION: The midwives' experiences were mediated by their socio-cultural working contexts. Negative experiences were characterised by a misalignment between the midwives' philosophy and organisational cultures, with significant consequences for the midwives. Conversely, examples of good organisational culture and practice reveal that it is possible for organisations to fulfil their obligations for safe and positive maternity care for both childbearing women who make alternative birthing choices, and for attending staff. This highlights what is feasible and achievable within maternity organisations and offers transferable insights for organisational support of out-of-guideline care that can be adapted across the UK and beyond.

Training and expertise in undertaking assisted vaginal delivery (AVD): a mixed methods systematic review of practitioners views and experiences.

BACKGROUND: During childbirth, complications may arise which necessitate an expedited delivery of the fetus. One option is instrumental assistance (forceps or a vacuum-cup), which, if used with skill and sensitivity, can improve maternal/neonatal outcomes. This review aimed to understand the core competencies and expertise required for skilled use in AVD in conjunction with reviewing potential barriers and facilitators to gaining competency and expertise, from the point of view of maternity care practitioners, funders and policy makers. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review was undertaken in five databases. Inclusion criteria were primary studies reporting views, opinions, perspectives and experiences of the target group in relation to the expertise, training, behaviours and competencies required for optimal AVD, barriers and facilitators to achieving practitioner competencies, and to the implementation of appropriate training. Quality appraisal was carried out on included studies. A mixed-methods convergent synthesis was carried out, and the findings were subjected to GRADE-CERQual assessment of confidence. RESULTS: 31 papers, reporting on 27 studies and published 1985-2020 were included. Studies included qualitative designs (3), mixed methods (3), and quantitative surveys (21). The majority (23) were from high-income countries, two from upper-middle income countries, one from a lower-income country: one survey included 111 low-middle countries. Confidence in the 10 statements of findings was mostly low, with one exception (moderate confidence). The review found that AVD competency comprises of inter-related skill sets including non-technical skills (e.g. behaviours), general clinical skills; and specific technical skills associated with particular instrument use. We found that practitioners needed and welcomed additional specific training, where a combination of teaching methods were used, to gain skills and confidence in this field. Clinical mentorship, and observing others confidently using the full range of instruments, was also required, and valued, to develop competency and expertise in AVD. However, concerns regarding poor outcomes and litigation were also raised. CONCLUSION: Access to specific AVD training, using a combination of teaching methods. Complements, but does not replace, close clinical mentorship from experts who are positive about AVD, and opportunities to practice emerging AVD skills with supportive supervision. Further research is required to ascertain effective modalities for wider training, education, and supportive supervision for optimal AVD use.

During the late stages of childbirth, complications can occur which require rapid birth of the baby. This can be facilitated with instruments (usually forceps or a suction cup) or by surgery (caesarean section). In some circumstances, instrumental birth (also termed assisted vaginal delivery, AVD) may be a better option than caesarean section. AVD requires practitioners to develop skills, competence and expertise in the procedure. Our aim for this review was to examine practitioners', funders' and policy makers' views about competence and expertise in AVD, how they can best gain this, the barriers and facilitators to implementing training packages, and their views, opinions and perspectives of their training. We included 27 studies (published 1985­2020), mostly from high-income countries. We had moderate confidence on one findings statement, with the rest assessed with low confidence. We found that practitioners valued extra training in AVD, observing others using the different instruments, and opportunities for clinical supervision, mentorship to gain experience, competence and expertise. We also found that, from the practitioners' perspective, competence encompasses a number of inter-related skill sets; non-technical skills (e.g. effective communication with the labouring woman), broad clinical skills (e.g. capacity to assess the whole clinical picture) and technical instrumental skills (e.g. correct application of a vacuum cup to the fetal head, or capacity to turn the baby so it is in the right position). Practitioners also identified a number of barriers and facilitators that supported (or did not support) their training needs and development.

A systematic meta-thematic synthesis to examine the views and experiences of women following water immersion during labour and waterbirth.

AIMS: To gather, quality assess, synthesize and interpret the views, feeling, and experiences of women who used water immersion during labour and/or birth. DESIGN: A systematic meta-thematic synthesis and GRADE-CERQual. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsychINFO, AMED, EMBASE (MIDIRS only), LILACS, AJOL. Additional searches were carried out using Ethos (thesis database), cross-referencing against Google Scholar and citation chasing. Searches were carried out in August 2019, updated February 2020. METHODS: Studies that met the selection criteria were appraised for quality. Data were extracted from the studies using meta-thematic analytical techniques; coding, descriptive findings, and analytical findings. The descriptive findings were subjected to confidence assessments using GRADE-CERQual. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Nine key statements of findings were generated - one had high confidence, three moderate, three low and one very low confidence in the findings. The analytical findings generated three main themes: Liberation and Self-Emancipation, Synergy, transcendence and demarcation and Transformative birth and beyond. Overall, women experienced warm water immersion during labour and/or birth positively. Both the water and pool itself, facilitated women's physical and psychological needs during labour and/or birth, including offering effective analgesia. Our findings indicated that birthing pools are versatile tools that provide for a space that women can adapt and influence to best suit their individual needs. CONCLUSION: Women who used warm water immersion for labour and/or birth describe liberating and transformative experiences of welcoming their babies into the world. They were empowered, liberated, and satisfied. We recommend maternity professionals and services offer water immersion as a standard method of pain relief during labour/birth. IMPACT: Understanding women's experiences of labour and birth will inform future clinical practice. Midwives are optimally positioned to enhance women's access to water immersion. These findings have implications for education, guideline, and policy development as well as clinical practice.

Understanding how midwives employed by the National Health Service facilitate women's alternative birthing choices: Findings from a feminist pragmatist study.

UK legislation and government policy favour women's rights to bodily autonomy and active involvement in childbirth decision-making including the right to decline recommendations of care/treatment. However, evidence suggests that both women and maternity professionals can face challenges enacting decisions outside of sociocultural norms. This study explored how NHS midwives facilitated women's alternative physiological birthing choices-defined in this study as 'birth choices that go outside of local/national maternity guidelines or when women decline recommended treatment of care, in the pursuit of a physiological birth'. The study was underpinned by a feminist pragmatist theoretical framework and narrative methodology was used to collect professional stories of practice via self-written narratives and interviews. Through purposive and snowball sampling, a diverse sample in terms of age, years of experience, workplace settings and model of care they operated within, 45 NHS midwives from across the UK were recruited. Data were analysed using narrative thematic that generated four themes that described midwives' processes of facilitating women's alternative physiological births: 1. Relationship building, 2. Processes of support and facilitation, 3. Behind the scenes, 4. Birth facilitation. Collectively, the midwives were involved in a wide range of alternative birth choices across all birth settings. Fundamental to their practice was the development of mutually trusting relationships with the women which were strongly asserted a key component of safe care. The participants highlighted a wide range of personal and advanced clinical skills which was framed within an inherent desire to meet the women's needs. Capturing what has been successfully achieved within institutionalised settings, specifically how, maternity providers may benefit from the findings of this study.

Women's experiences of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods for labour and childbirth: a qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many women use pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief during childbirth. Evidence from Cochrane reviews shows that effective pain relief is not always associated with high maternal satisfaction scores. However, understanding women's views is important for good quality maternity care provision. We undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis of women's views and experiences of pharmacological (epidural, opioid analgesia) and non-pharmacological (relaxation, massage techniques) pain relief options, to understand what affects women's decisions and choices and to inform guidelines, policy, and practice. METHODS: We searched seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, AJOL), tracked citations and checked references. We used thematic and meta-ethnographic techniques for analysis purposes, and GRADE-CERQual tool to assess confidence in review findings. We developed review findings for each method. We then re-analysed the review findings thematically to highlight similarities and differences in women's accounts of different pain relief methods. RESULTS: From 11,782 hits, we screened full 58 papers. Twenty-four studies provided findings for the synthesis: epidural (n = 12), opioids (n = 3), relaxation (n = 8) and massage (n = 4) - all conducted in upper-middle and high-income countries (HMICs). Re-analysis of the review findings produced five key themes. 'Desires for pain relief' illuminates different reasons for using pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief. 'Impact on pain' describes varying levels of effectiveness of the methods used. 'Influence and experience of support' highlights women's positive or negative experiences of support from professionals and/or birth companions. 'Influence on focus and capabilities' illustrates that all pain relief methods can facilitate maternal control, but some found non-pharmacological techniques less effective than anticipated, and others reported complications associated with medication use. Finally, 'impact on wellbeing and health' reports that whilst some women were satisfied with their pain relief method, medication was associated with negative self-reprisals, whereas women taught relaxation techniques often continued to use these methods with beneficial outcomes. CONCLUSION: Women report mixed experiences of different pain relief methods. Pharmacological methods can reduce pain but have negative side-effects. Non-pharmacological methods may not reduce labour pain but can facilitate bonding with professionals and birth supporters. Women need information on risks and benefits of all available pain relief methods.

Caring for women making unconventional birth choices: A meta-ethnography exploring the views, attitudes, and experiences of midwives.

INTRODUCTION: Women can face opposition when exerting autonomous decision-making regarding their birth choices, particularly when the decisions involve going against medical advice and/or outside of national guidelines. Termed 'unconventional birth choices', some research has explored women's reasons and experiences of making such choices, but less is known about the midwives caring for them. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize existing qualitative literature on the views, attitudes, and experiences of midwives caring for women who make unconventional birth choices. METHODS: A systematic search and meta-ethnography informed by Noblit and Hare and Schutz was undertaken. Eight databases were searched using predetermined search terms, alongside author, reference, citation chasing, and hand searching. Searches were conducted in July 2016 and updated in October 2017. Qualitative studies published since 1993 in English were included. Included studies were subjected to quality appraisal, conducted independently by two reviewers. Analysis was informed by the interpretative meta-ethnography methods. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight subthemes emerged. These resulted in three higher level interpretative themes emerged: perceptions of women's decision making, conflicting tensions as caregivers, ways of working with-woman. CONCLUSIONS: Midwives can play a pivotal role in ensuring that respectful maternity care includes supporting women in their birthing decisions. Whilst limited research has been undertaken in this area, available insights suggest that midwives' views in this area are situated along a spectrum from 'willingly facilitative' to 'reluctantly accepting'. Views were influenced by context, as well as prior philosophies and values. While further research is needed, this study offers insights into the challenges women can face in seeking unconventional birth choices if they require support from midwives to do so.

Freebirthing: a case for using interpretative hermeneutic phenomenology in midwifery research for knowledge generation, dissemination and impact.

AIM: This study explored women's reasons for and their experiences of decision making that related to the phenomenon of freebirthing within the United Kingdom. Freebirthing is the active choice to birth without a health professional present, even where there is access to maternity care. METHODS: In total, 10 women were recruited to participate in an interpretative hermeneutic phenomenological study. Data were collected via written narratives and follow-up interviews. FINDINGS: The findings revealed direct implications for midwifery practice, namely that the complex and nuanced reasons to freebirth were often related to a previous birth trauma or negative interactions with maternity professionals. Additional findings revealed that women faced distressing opposition and conflict from midwives in relation to their decision to freebirth, despite its current legality in the United Kingdom. These findings have been published elsewhere. However, the purpose of this paper is twofold: first, using my research into freebirthing as a case study, I will demonstrate the use and benefits of interpretative hermeneutic phenomenology to midwifery and nursing research in order to generate knowledge for the benefit of service users, healthcare professionals, researchers and policy makers; second, I will discuss the activities I carried out to enhance dissemination and impact for the benefit of service users and clinicians.

No means no! Let's talk about consent.

Current changes in midwifery raise concerns about the erosion of women's choices and midwives' autonomy. This article is an exploration of women's legal rights that relate to consent and declining care. Using examples of poor practice, women's negative experiences are highlighted. However, this article demonstrates how midwifery practice can be grounded in the current legal framework in such a way that women's decisions are upheld and midwives feel supported in their advocacy role.

Tensions and conflicts in 'choice': Womens' experiences of freebirthing in the UK.

BACKGROUND: the concept of choice is a central tenet of modern maternity care. However, in reality women's choice of birth is constrained by a paucity of resources and dominant medical and risk adverse discourses. In this paper we add to this debate through highlighting the tensions and conflicts that women faced when enacting a freebirthing choice. METHODS: secondary analysis of data collected to explore why women choose to freebirth in the UK was undertaken. Ten women were recruited from diverse areas of the UK via invitations on freebirthing websites. Women provided a narrative and/or participated in an in-depth interview. A thematic analysis approach was used. FINDINGS: we present three key themes. First 'violation of rights' highlights the conflicts women faced from maternity care systems who were unaware of women's legal rights to freebirth, conflating this choice with issues of child protection. 'Tactical planning' describes some of the strategies women used in their attempts to achieve the birth they desired and to circumnavigate any interference or reprisals. The third theme, 'unfit to be a mother' describes distressing accounts of women who were reported to social services. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: women who choose to freebirth face opposition and conflict from maternity providers, and often negative and distressing repercussions through statutory referrals. These insights raise important implications for raising awareness among health professionals about women's legal rights. They also emphasise a need to develop guidelines and care pathways that accurately and sensitively support the midwives professional scope of practice and women's choices for birth.

Why do some women choose to freebirth in the UK? An interpretative phenomenological study.

BACKGROUND: Freebirthing or unassisted birth is the active choice made by a woman to birth without a trained professional present, even where there is access to maternity provision. This is a radical childbirth choice, which has potential morbidity and mortality risks for mother and baby. While a number of studies have explored women's freebirth experiences, there has been no research undertaken in the UK. The aim of this study was to explore and identify what influenced women's decision to freebirth in a UK context. METHODS: An interpretive phenomenological approach was adopted. Advertisements were posted on freebirth websites, and ten women participated in the study by completing a narrative (n = 9) and/or taking part in an in-depth interview (n = 10). Data analysis was carried out using interpretative methods informed by Heidegger and Gadamer's hermeneutic-phenomenological concepts. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged from the data. Contextualising herstory describes how the participants' backgrounds (personal and/or childbirth related) influenced their decision making. Diverging paths of decision making provides more detailed insights into how and why women's different backgrounds and experiences of childbirth and maternity care influenced their decision to freebirth. Converging path of decision making, outlines the commonalities in women's narratives in terms of how they sought to validate their decision to freebirth, such as through self-directed research, enlisting the support of others and conceptualising risk. CONCLUSION: The UK based midwifery philosophy of woman-centred care that tailors care to individual needs is not always carried out, leaving women to feel disillusioned, unsafe and opting out of any form of professionalised care for their births. Maternity services need to provide support for women who have experienced a previous traumatic birth. Midwives also need to help restore relationships with women, and co-create birth plans that enable women to be active agents in their birthing decisions even if they challenge normative practices. The fact that women choose to freebirth in order to create a calm, quiet birthing space that is free from clinical interruptions and that enhances the physiology of labour, should be a key consideration.