A mixed-methods study of women's birthplace preferences and decisions in England.

PROBLEM: Choice has been a key aspect of maternity care policy in England since 1993, however a gap remains between the birthplaces women want and where they actually give birth. BACKGROUND: The latest maternity care policy in England acknowledges that women are not being given 'real choice' in their care and often being told what to do. This is problematic since unfulfilled preferences have been linked to negative childbirth experiences. AIM: To understand the factors affecting women's birthplace preferences and decisions, and why these might differ. METHODS: A sequential mixed-methods study consisting of an online questionnaire (n=49) and follow-up interviews (n=14) with women who were either currently pregnant or had recently given birth in a metropolitan region in England. FINDINGS: Most women in this study said that they would prefer to give birth in an alongside maternity unit because it offered a compromise between the risk of poor outcomes and risk of unnecessary medicalisation. However, the majority of women's preferences were medicalised at the point of decision-making as the minimisation of clinical risk was ultimately prioritised. DISCUSSION: Women's preference for the alongside maternity unit demonstrates the growing popularity for this less medicalised, 'alternative' birthplace option. However pre-existing conditions, reproductive histories and experiential knowledge influence women's decision to give birth in the labour ward and suggests that minimising clinical risk is women's key priority. CONCLUSION: Women navigate complex and competing discourses when forming childbirth preferences and making decisions, selectively considering different risks and knowledges to make the decisions right for them.

Realist inquiry into Maternity care @ a Distance (ARM@DA): realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: One of the most commonly reported COVID-19-related changes to all maternity services has been an increase in the use of digital clinical consultations such as telephone or video calling; however, the ways in which they can be optimally used along maternity care pathways remain unclear. It is imperative that digital service innovations do not further exacerbate (and, ideally, should tackle) existing inequalities in service access and clinical outcomes. Using a realist approach, this project aims to synthesise the evidence around implementation of digital clinical consultations, seeking to illuminate how they can work to support safe, personalised and appropriate maternity care and to clarify when they might be most appropriately used, for whom, when, and in what contexts? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will be conducted in four iterative phases, with embedded stakeholder involvement: (1) refining the review focus and generating initial programme theories, (2) exploring and developing the programme theories in light of evidence, (3) testing/refining the programme theories and (4) constructing actionable recommendations. The review will draw on four sources of evidence: (1) published literature (searching nine bibliographic databases), (2) unpublished (grey) literature, including research, audit, evaluation and policy documents (derived from Google Scholar, website searches and e-thesis databases), (3) expertise contributed by service user and health professional stakeholder groups (n=20-35) and (4) key informant interviews (n=12). Included papers will consist of any study design, in English and from 2010 onwards. The review will follow the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis Evolving Standards quality procedures and reporting guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of Nottingham, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Ethics Committee (FMHS 426-1221). Informed consent will be obtained for all key informant interviews. Findings will be disseminated in a range of formats relevant to different audiences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021288702.

Exploring trust in (bio)medical and experiential knowledge of birth: The perspectives of pregnant women, new mothers and maternity care providers.

OBJECTIVE: To explore women's and maternity care providers' experiences of birth, and the roles of (bio)medical and experiential knowledge therein. RESEARCH DESIGN/SETTING: In-depth qualitative interviews were undertaken with pregnant women and new mothers (n = 14) as well as with a range of maternity care providers working for the National Health Service (n = 6) and privately (n = 7). FINDINGS: Trust emerged as a key concept in women's and maternity care providers' narratives. It was found that women and maternity care providers placed trust in two key areas: trust in past experiences and trust in women's innate abilities and embodied knowledge of birth. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Women and maternity care providers trust and utilise both (bio)medical and experiential forms of knowledge of birth in complex ways and the value an individual ascribes to (bio)medical and/or experiential knowledge is highly subjective, and not necessarily mutually exclusive. This destabilises the notion that (bio)medical knowledge is associated with experts and experiential knowledge is associated with 'lay' people, and that these two bodies of knowledge are distinct. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Trust is a key concept in maternity care. The predominance of biomedical models of birth risk reducing trust in the value of experiential based birth knowledges - both embodied and empathetic. Trust in experiential knowledge could help to facilitate woman-centred care by recognising women as valuable 'knowers' with unique insight to contribute, and not just receivers of medical knowledge. It may also help providers 'tune-in' with the women in their care if they allow their experiential knowledge to complement their (bio)medical knowledge.