Targeted health and social care interventions for women and infants who are disproportionately impacted by health inequalities in high-income countries: a systematic review

Preliminary findings on the experiences of care for women who suffered early pregnancy losses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Women who suffer an early pregnancy loss require specific clinical care, aftercare, and ongoing support. In the UK, the clinical management of early pregnancy complications, including loss is provided mainly through specialist Early Pregnancy Assessment Units. The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally changed the way in which maternity and gynaecological care was delivered, as health systems moved to rapidly reconfigure and re-organise services, aiming to reduce the risk and spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PUDDLES is an international collaboration investigating the pandemic's impact on care for people who suffered a perinatal bereavement. Presented here are initial qualitative findings undertaken with UK-based women who suffered early pregnancy losses during the pandemic, about how they navigated the healthcare system and its restrictions, and how they were supported.

METHODS

In-keeping with a qualitative research design, in-depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken with an opportunity sample of women (N = 32) who suffered any early pregnancy loss during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analysed using a template analysis to understand women's access to services, care, and networks of support, during the pandemic following their pregnancy loss. The thematic template was based on findings from parents who had suffered a late-miscarriage, stillbirth, or neonatal death in the UK, during the pandemic.

RESULTS

All women had experienced reconfigured maternity and early pregnancy services. Data supported themes of: 1) COVID-19 Restrictions as Impractical & Impersonal; 2) Alone, with Only Staff to Support Them; 3) Reduction in Service Provision Leading to Perceived Devaluation in Care; and 4) Seeking Their Own Support. Results suggest access to early pregnancy loss services was reduced and pandemic-related restrictions were often impractical (i.e., restrictions added to burden of accessing or receiving care). Women often reported being isolated and, concerningly, aspects of early pregnancy loss services were reported as sub-optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide important insight for the recovery and rebuilding of health services in the post-pandemic period and help us prepare for providing a higher standard of care in the future and through any other health system shocks. Conclusions made can inform future policy and planning to ensure best possible support for women who experience early pregnancy loss.

Increasing the number of midwives is necessary but not sufficient: using global data to support the case for investment in both midwife availability and the enabling work environment in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Most countries are off-track to achieve global maternal and newborn health goals. Global stakeholders agree that investment in midwifery is an important element of the solution. During a global shortage of health workers, strategic decisions must be made about how to configure services to achieve the best possible outcomes with the available resources. This paper aims to assess the relationship between the strength of low- and middle-income countries' (LMICs') midwifery profession and key maternal and newborn health outcomes, and thus to prompt policy dialogue about service configuration.

METHODS

Using the most recent available data from publicly available global databases for the period 2000-2020, we conducted an ecological study to examine the association between the number of midwives per 10,000 population and: (i) maternal mortality, (ii) neonatal mortality, and (iii) caesarean birth rate in LMICs. We developed a composite measure of the strength of the midwifery profession, and examined its relationship with maternal mortality.

RESULTS

In LMICs (especially low-income countries), higher availability of midwives is associated with lower maternal and neonatal mortality. In upper-middle-income countries, higher availability of midwives is associated with caesarean birth rates close to 10-15%. However, some countries achieved good outcomes without increasing midwife availability, and some have increased midwife availability and not achieved good outcomes. Similarly, while stronger midwifery service structures are associated with greater reductions in maternal mortality, this is not true in every country.

CONCLUSIONS

A complex web of health system factors and social determinants contribute to maternal and newborn health outcomes, but there is enough evidence from this and other studies to indicate that midwives can be a highly cost-effective element of national strategies to improve these outcomes.

Interventions to reduce inequalities for pregnant women living with disadvantage in high-income countries: an umbrella review protocol

BACKGROUND

Women who live with disadvantages such as socioeconomic deprivation, substance misuse, poor mental health, or domestic abuse face inequalities in health before, during, and after pregnancy and for their infants through to childhood. Women do not experience these factors alone; they accumulate and interact. Therefore, there is a need for an overview of interventions that work across health and social care and target women at risk of inequalities in maternal or child health.

METHODS

Systematic review methodology will be used to identify systematic reviews from high-income countries that describe interventions aiming to reduce inequalities for women who experience social disadvantage during pregnancy. We will describe the range of interventions and their effectiveness in reducing inequalities in maternal or child health. Any individual, hospital, or community-level activity specific to women during the pre-conception, antenatal, or postpartum period up to 1 year after birth will be included, regardless of the setting in which they are delivered. We will search eight electronic databases with the pre-determined search strategy and supplement them with extensive grey literature searches. We will present a narrative synthesis, taking into account the quality assessment and coverage of included studies.

DISCUSSION

Inequalities in maternal and child health are a key priority area for national policymakers. Understanding the range and effectiveness of interventions across the perinatal period will inform policy and practice. Identifying gaps in the evidence will inform future research.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023455502.

Diabetes in pregnancy: Women's views of care in a multi-ethnic, low socioeconomic population with midwifery continuity-of-care

BACKGROUND

Diabetes in pregnancy is diagnosed in 6% of pregnancies annually in Aotearoa-New Zealand, disproportionately affecting multi-ethnic, low socio-economic women. Little is known about the care experience of this population within the model of midwifery continuity-of-care, including views of telehealth care.

AIM

Increase understanding of the experience of diabetes in pregnancy care, including telehealth, among multi-ethnic, low socio-economic women receiving midwifery continuity-of-care.

METHODS

Qualitative interview study with primarily indigenous and migrant women who had diabetes in pregnancy and gave birth 6-18 months previously. Interviewers were matched with participants by ethnicity. Transcripts were analysed using Framework analysis.

RESULTS

Participants were 19 women (5 Māori, 5 Pacific Peoples, 5 Asian, 4 European). Data analysis revealed three key themes: 1) 'shock, shame, and adjustment' to the diagnosis 2) 'learning to manage diabetes in pregnancy' and 3) 'preparation for birth and beyond' to the postpartum period.

DISCUSSION

Receiving the diagnosis of diabetes in pregnancy was a shock. Managing diabetes during pregnancy was particularly challenging for indigenous and migrant women, who wished for better access to culturally appropriate dietary and lifestyle information. Women appreciated having options of telehealth and face-to-face consultations. Preparation for birth and postpartum diabetes follow-up were areas requiring significant improvement. Challenges were mitigated through care from a consistent diabetes specialist midwife and community-based midwifery continuity-of-care.

CONCLUSION

Midwives were the backbone of diabetes in pregnancy care for this multi-ethnic, low socio-economic population. Care could be improved with more culturally appropriate diet and lifestyle information, better birth preparation, and expanded postpartum diabetes support.

Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women

BACKGROUND

Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.

A consensus statement on perinatal mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations for post-pandemic recovery and re-build

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic posed a significant lifecourse rupture, not least to those who had specific physical vulnerabilities to the virus, but also to those who were suffering with mental ill health. Women and birthing people who were pregnant, experienced a perinatal bereavement, or were in the first post-partum year (i.e., perinatal) were exposed to a number of risk factors for mental ill health, including alterations to the way in which their perinatal care was delivered.

Methods

A consensus statement was derived from a cross-disciplinary collaboration of experts, whereby evidence from collaborative work on perinatal mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic was synthesised, and priorities were established as recommendations for research, healthcare practice, and policy.

Results

The synthesis of research focused on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on perinatal health outcomes and care practices led to three immediate recommendations: what to retain, what to reinstate, and what to remove from perinatal mental healthcare provision. Longer-term recommendations for action were also made, categorised as follows: Equity and Relational Healthcare; Parity of Esteem in Mental and Physical Healthcare with an Emphasis on Specialist Perinatal Services; and Horizon Scanning for Perinatal Mental Health Research, Policy, & Practice.

Discussion

The evidence base on the effect of the pandemic on perinatal mental health is growing. This consensus statement synthesises said evidence and makes recommendations for a post-pandemic recovery and re-build of perinatal mental health services and care provision.