Birth "outside of guidance"-An exploration of a Birth Choices Clinic in the United Kingdom.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Sophie McAllister, Claire Litchfield
{"title":"Birth \"outside of guidance\"-An exploration of a Birth Choices Clinic in the United Kingdom.","authors":"Sophie McAllister, Claire Litchfield","doi":"10.1111/birt.12827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Decision-making around birthplace is complex and multifactorial. The role of clinicians is to provide unbiased, evidence-based information to support women and birthing people to make decisions based on what matters to them. Some decisions may fall outside of clinical guidance and recommendations. Birth Choices Clinics can provide an opportunity for extended discussion and personalized birthplace planning. This study aimed to explore the rationale behind choosing birthplace \"outside of guidance\" and examine the outcomes for women who attended a Birth Choices Clinic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was descriptive using data extracted from clinical documentation and consultation. The data included demographic information, maternal characteristics, reason for choosing a midwifery-led birth setting, birthplace preference, and outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-two women used the Birth Choices Clinic between April 2022 and February 2023 in one large maternity unit in the UK. Reasons for choosing birth in a midwifery-led setting included having access to a birthing pool, to reduce the chance of obstetric interventions and pragmatic reasons. Sixty-five percent of women experienced a spontaneous vaginal birth, 10% experienced an assisted vaginal birth, and 23% experienced a cesarean birth. Of the 33 women who ultimately commenced labor care in a midwifery-led setting, 76% (n = 25/33) birthed in this setting without complications. Transfer rates in labor were similar to those in a \"low-risk\" pregnant population.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Birth choice clinics may facilitate an understanding of material risk and support individualizing birth planning. There is evidence that women changed their planned birthplace, possibly in recognition of a move along the risk spectrum.</p>","PeriodicalId":55350,"journal":{"name":"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12827","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Decision-making around birthplace is complex and multifactorial. The role of clinicians is to provide unbiased, evidence-based information to support women and birthing people to make decisions based on what matters to them. Some decisions may fall outside of clinical guidance and recommendations. Birth Choices Clinics can provide an opportunity for extended discussion and personalized birthplace planning. This study aimed to explore the rationale behind choosing birthplace "outside of guidance" and examine the outcomes for women who attended a Birth Choices Clinic.

Methods: The study was descriptive using data extracted from clinical documentation and consultation. The data included demographic information, maternal characteristics, reason for choosing a midwifery-led birth setting, birthplace preference, and outcome.

Results: Eighty-two women used the Birth Choices Clinic between April 2022 and February 2023 in one large maternity unit in the UK. Reasons for choosing birth in a midwifery-led setting included having access to a birthing pool, to reduce the chance of obstetric interventions and pragmatic reasons. Sixty-five percent of women experienced a spontaneous vaginal birth, 10% experienced an assisted vaginal birth, and 23% experienced a cesarean birth. Of the 33 women who ultimately commenced labor care in a midwifery-led setting, 76% (n = 25/33) birthed in this setting without complications. Transfer rates in labor were similar to those in a "low-risk" pregnant population.

Discussion: Birth choice clinics may facilitate an understanding of material risk and support individualizing birth planning. There is evidence that women changed their planned birthplace, possibly in recognition of a move along the risk spectrum.

分娩 "指导之外"--英国分娩选择诊所的探索。
背景:关于分娩地点的决策是复杂和多因素的。临床医生的职责是提供无偏见、以证据为基础的信息,以支持妇女和分娩者根据他们所关心的问题做出决定。有些决定可能会超出临床指导和建议的范围。分娩选择诊所可以为扩展讨论和个性化分娩场所规划提供机会。本研究旨在探讨 "指导之外 "选择分娩地点的理由,并研究参加分娩选择诊所的妇女的分娩结果:研究采用描述性方法,从临床文件和咨询中提取数据。数据包括人口统计学信息、产妇特征、选择助产士主导的分娩环境的原因、对分娩场所的偏好以及结果:结果:2022 年 4 月至 2023 年 2 月期间,英国一家大型产科医院的 82 名产妇使用了 "分娩选择诊所"。选择在助产士主导的环境中分娩的原因包括可以使用分娩池、减少产科干预的机会以及实用性原因。65%的产妇经历了自然阴道分娩,10%的产妇经历了辅助阴道分娩,23%的产妇经历了剖宫产。最终在助产士指导下开始分娩的 33 名产妇中,76%(n = 25/33)在助产士指导下分娩,没有出现并发症。产妇的转院率与 "低风险 "孕妇的转院率相似:讨论:分娩选择诊所可促进对重大风险的了解,并支持个性化的分娩计划。有证据表明,妇女改变了她们计划的分娩地点,这可能是由于她们认识到了风险的变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care
Birth-Issues in Perinatal Care 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care is a multidisciplinary, refereed journal devoted to issues and practices in the care of childbearing women, infants, and families. It is written by and for professionals in maternal and neonatal health, nurses, midwives, physicians, public health workers, doulas, social scientists, childbirth educators, lactation counselors, epidemiologists, and other health caregivers and policymakers in perinatal care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信