Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
BJOG ; 2024 Jul 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38965793

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% women who give birth after obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) develop anal incontinence (AI) over their lifetime. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current evidence for a protective benefit of planned caesarean section (CS) to prevent AI after OASI. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase 1974-2024, CINAHL and Cochrane to 7 February 2024 (PROSPERO CRD42022372442). SELECTION CRITERIA: All studies reporting outcomes after OASI and a subsequent birth, by any mode. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eighty-six of 2646 screened studies met inclusion criteria, with nine studies suitable to meta-analyse the primary outcome of 'adjusted AI' after OASI and subsequent birth. Subgroups: short-term AI, long-term AI, AI in asymptomatic women. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: total AI, quality of life, satisfaction/regret, solid/liquid/flatal incontinence, faecal urgency, AI in women with and without subsequent birth, change in AI pre- to post- subsequent birth. MAIN RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in adjusted AI after subsequent vaginal birth compared with CS after OASI across all time periods (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.20; 9 studies, 2104 participants, I2 = 0% p = 0.58), for subgroup analyses or secondary outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference in AI in women with or without subsequent birth (OR = 1.00 95% CI 0.65-1.54; 10 studies, 970 participants, I2 = 35% p = 0.99), or pre- to post- subsequent birth (OR = 0.79 95% CI 0.51-1.25; 13 studies, 5496 participants, I2 = 73% p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Due to low evidence quality, we are unable to determine whether planned caesarean is protective against AI after OASI. Higher quality evidence is required to guide personalised decision-making for asymptomatic women and to determine the effect of subsequent birth mode on long-term AI outcomes.

2.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 229(4): 451.e1-451.e15, 2023 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37150282

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Determining the optimal time of birth at term is challenging given the ongoing risks of stillbirth with increasing gestation vs the risks of significant neonatal morbidity at early-term gestations. These risks are more pronounced in small infants. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the risks of stillbirth, neonatal mortality, and severe neonatal morbidity by comparing expectant management with delivery from 37+0 weeks of gestation. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating women with singleton, nonanomalous pregnancies at 37+0 to 40+6 weeks' gestation in Queensland, Australia, delivered from 2000 to 2018. Rates of stillbirth, neonatal death, and severe neonatal morbidity were calculated for <3rd, 3rd to <10th, 10th to <25th, 25th to <90th, and ≥90th birthweight centiles. The composite risk of mortality with expectant management for an additional week in utero was compared with rates of neonatal mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. RESULTS: Of 948,895 singleton, term nonanomalous births, 813,077 occurred at 37+0 to 40+6 weeks' gestation. Rates of stillbirth increased with gestational age, with the highest rate observed in infants with birthweight below the third centile: 10.0 per 10,000 (95% confidence interval, 6.2-15.3) at 37+0 to 37+6 weeks, rising to 106.4 per 10,000 (95% confidence interval, 74.6-146.9) at 40+0 to 40+6 weeks' gestation. The rate of neonatal mortality was highest at 37+0 to 37+6 weeks for all birthweight centiles. The composite risk of expectant management rose sharply after 39+0 to 39+6 weeks, and was highest in infants with birthweight below the third centile (125.2/10,000; 95% confidence interval, 118.4-132.3) at 40+0 to 40+6 weeks' gestation. Balancing the risk of expectant management and delivery (neonatal mortality), the optimal timing of delivery for each birthweight centile was evaluated on the basis of relative risk differences. The rate of severe neonatal morbidity sharply decreased in the period between 37+0 to 37+6 and 38+0 to 38+6 weeks, particularly for infants with birthweight below the third centile. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the optimal time of birth is 37+0 to 37+6 weeks for infants with birthweight <3rd centile and 38+0 to 38+6 weeks' gestation for those with birthweight between the 3rd and 10th centile and >90th centile. For all other birthweight centiles, birth from 39+0 weeks is associated with the best outcomes. However, large numbers of planned births are required to prevent a single excess death. The healthcare costs and acceptability to women of potential universal policies of planned birth need to be carefully considered.


Assuntos
Natimorto , Conduta Expectante , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Gravidez , Feminino , Humanos , Natimorto/epidemiologia , Peso ao Nascer , Estudos Retrospectivos , Mortalidade Infantil , Idade Gestacional , Morbidade
3.
Birth ; 45(2): 130-136, 2018 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29251376

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated risk factors associated with hospital birth among women planning to give birth in a birth center in the United States. This study describes the obstetrical risk factors for hospital birth among women intending to deliver in a birth center in Washington State. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Washington State birth certificate data for women with singleton, term pregnancies planning to give birth at a birth center from 2004 to 2011. We assessed risk factors for hospital birth including demographic, obstetrical, and medical characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the association between risk factors and hospital birth. RESULTS: Among the 7118 women planning to give birth at a birth center during the study period, 7% (N = 501) had a hospital birth, and 93% delivered at a birth center (N = 6617). The strongest risk factors for hospital transfer included nulliparity (OR 7.2 [95% CI 5.3-9.8]), maternal age >40 years (OR 3.7 [95% CI 2.1-6.7]), inadequate prenatal care (OR 3.7 [95% CI 2.7-5.0]), body mass index ≥30 (OR 2.1 [95% CI 1.6-3.0]), government health insurance (OR 9.3 [95% CI 5.0-17.1]), and hypertension (10.1 [95% CI 5.7-18.1]). Among nulliparous women, all of these demographic and obstetrical factors remained strongly associated with hospital birth. CONCLUSIONS: This information may be useful for counseling women who plan a birth center birth about the risk of hospital birth.


Assuntos
Centros de Assistência à Gravidez e ao Parto/estatística & dados numéricos , Salas de Parto/estatística & dados numéricos , Idade Materna , Paridade , Adolescente , Adulto , Índice de Massa Corporal , Feminino , Humanos , Seguro Saúde , Modelos Logísticos , Análise Multivariada , Gravidez , Complicações na Gravidez , Cuidado Pré-Natal/economia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Washington , Adulto Jovem
4.
Midwifery ; 126: 103828, 2023 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37717344

RESUMO

PROBLEM: Implementation of woman-centred care in evidence-based maternity practice requires clinicians to be skilled in shared decision-making, yet there is limited training or research into such interventions. BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making enables women to make informed decisions in partnership with clinicians where there are varied clinical options in relation to indications for and timing of planned birth. AIM: We aimed to develop a shared decision-making training intervention and evaluate its feasibility and acceptability to midwives and obstetricians. METHODS: The intervention was co-designed by midwifery and medical clinician-researchers, and a consumer representative. Online training and demonstration videos were distributed to midwives and obstetricians in three Sydney hospitals, followed by two online workshops in 2021 and 2022 where participants practised shared decision-making in roleplaying scenarios tailored to timing of birth. Training was evaluated using post-workshop and post-training surveys and semi-structured qualitative interviews. FINDINGS: The training workshop format, duration and content were well received. Barriers to the uptake of shared decision-making were time, paternalistic practices and fear of repercussions of centring women in the decision-making process. DISCUSSION: The intervention enabled midwifery and medical colleagues to learn communication repertoires from each other in woman-centred discussions around timing of birth. Roleplay scenarios enabled participants to observe and provide feedback on their colleagues' shared decision-making practices, while providing a space for collective reflection on ways to promote, and mitigate barriers to, its implementation in practice. CONCLUSION: Shared decision-making training supports maternity clinicians in developing skills that implement woman-centred care in the timing of planned birth.


Assuntos
Serviços de Saúde Materna , Tocologia , Obstetrícia , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Tocologia/métodos , Tomada de Decisão Compartilhada , Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências , Tomada de Decisões
5.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32326549

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The present observational study aimed to describe women and delivery characteristics and early birth outcomes according to planned out-of-hospital delivery and to compare this information with comparable planned in-hospital deliveries. METHODS: 1099 healthy low-risk women who delivered out-of-hospital between 2014 to 2018, with a gestational age of 37-42 completed weeks of pregnancy, with single, vertex babies whose birth was expected to be vaginal and spontaneous were enrolled. Moreover, a case-control study was designed comparing characteristics of these births to a matched 1:5 sample. RESULTS: living in a medium city (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.19-2.74), being multiparous (RR 1.66, CI 1.09-2.51), having the first child at ≥35 years old (RR 1.84, CI 1.02-3.33), not working (RR 1.77, CI 1.06-2.96), not being omnivorous (RR 1.80, CI 1.08-3.00), and not smoking (RR 2.53, CI 1.06-6.07) were all related to an increased chance of delivering at home compared to in a freestanding midwifery unit. The significant factors in choosing to give birth out-of-hospital instead of in-hospital were living in a large or medium city (OR 2.20; 1.75-2.77; OR 2.41; 1.93-3.02) and having a secondary or higher level of education (OR > 2 for both parents). Within the first week of delivery, 6 of 1099 mothers and 19 of 1099 neonates were hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: out-of-hospital births in women with low-risk pregnancies is a possible option that needs to be planned, monitored, regulated, and evaluated according to healthcare control systems in order to work, as in hospitals, for the safest and most effective care to a mother and her neonate(s).


Assuntos
Parto Domiciliar , Tocologia , Parto , Resultado da Gravidez , Adolescente , Adulto , Entorno do Parto , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Itália , Gravidez , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
Detalhe da pesquisa