"It could not have been more different." Comparing experiences of hospital-based birth and homebirth in Ireland: A mixed-methods survey.

PROBLEM: Internationally, little is known about the experiences of the minority who have birthed both in hospital and at home. This group are in a unique position to provide experiential evidence regarding perceptions of care under each approach. BACKGROUND: Obstetric care within the hospital setting is the hegemonic approach to birth in western cultures. Homebirth is at least as safe as hospital birth for those with low-risk pregnancies, yet access is strictly regulated. AIM: To explore how those who have experienced both hospital and homebirth maternity care in Ireland perceived the care received, and experienced birth in each setting. METHODS: 141 participants who birthed both in hospital and at home between 2011 and 2021 completed an online survey. FINDINGS: Participants' overall experience scores were significantly higher for homebirth (9.7/10) than hospital birth (5.5/10). In hospital, midwifery-led care scored significantly higher (6.4/10) than consultant-led care (4.9/10). Qualitative data revealed four explanatory themes: 1) Regulation of birth; 2) Continuity of care and/or carer and establishing relationships; 3) Bodily integrity and informed consent; and 4) Lived experiences of labour and birth at home and in hospital. DISCUSSION: Homebirth was perceived far more positively than hospital birth experiences across all aspects of care surveyed. Findings suggest that those who have experienced both models of care have unique perspectives and aspirations about childbirth. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence regarding the need for genuine choices for maternity care and reveals the importance of care which is respectful and responsive to divergent ideologies about birth.

Public Health Directives in a Pandemic: Paradoxical Messages for Domestic Abuse Victims in Four Countries.

When the COVID-19 pandemic manifested urgent concerns were raised around the globe about the increased risk that public health restrictions could pose for victims of domestic abuse. Governments, NGOs and community services swiftly responded to convey the message that services for victims were operational and restrictions did not apply to those fleeing harm. This paper reports on the various approaches used to communicate this public health messaging during COVID-19, further highlighting strengths and learning which could inform future crises messaging. It utilises data gathered through a rapid review and mapping of policy and practice initiatives across 4 high-middle income countries: UK, Australia, South Africa and Ireland. Four themes were identified: (1) Top-down: National media messaging; (2) Top-down: Political leadership; (3) Traditional media vs. social media and (4) Bottom-up messaging: Localised, community-based messaging. It was found that a strong, clear top-down stance on domestic abuse was perceived as beneficial during COVID-19. However, a stronger focus on evaluation, reach and impact, particularly for minority groups may be required. Newer forms of media were shown to have potential in conveying messaging to minority groups. Community and grassroots organizations demonstrated their experiential knowledge in reaching target audiences. Harnessing this expertise for future crises messaging may be valuable.