Enabling the context for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Birthing on Country services: Participatory action research.

PROBLEM: Establishment of Birthing on Country services owned and governed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services has been slow. BACKGROUND: Birthing on Country services have demonstrated health and cost benefits and require redesign of maternity care. During the Building On Our Strengths feasibility study, use of endorsed midwives and licensing of birth centres has proven difficult. QUESTION: What prevents Community Controlled Health Services from implementing Birthing on Country services in Queensland and New South Wales? METHODS: Participatory action research identified implementation barriers. We conducted iterative document analysis of instruments to inform government lobbying through synthesis of policy, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental factors. FINDINGS: Through cycles of participatory action research, we analysed 17 documents: 1) policy barriers prevent Community Controlled Health Services from employing endorsed midwives to provide intrapartum care in public hospitals; 2) economic barriers include lack of sustainable funding stream and inadequate Medicare-billing for endorsed midwives; and 3) legal barriers require a medical practitioner in a birth centre. While social barriers (e.g., colonisation, medicalisation) underpin regulations, these were beyond the scope; technological and environmental barriers were not identified. DISCUSSION: Findings are consistent with the literature on barriers to midwifery practice. Recommendations include a national audit of barriers to Birthing on Country services including healthcare practice insurance, and development of a funding stream. Additionally, private maternity facility regulation must align with evidence on safe birth centre operation. CONCLUSION: Government can address barriers to scale-up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Birthing on Country services.

Developing and evaluating Birthing on Country services for First Nations Australians: the Building On Our Strengths (BOOSt) prospective mixed methods birth cohort study protocol.

BACKGROUND: With the impact of over two centuries of colonisation in Australia, First Nations families experience a disproportionate burden of adverse pregnancy and birthing outcomes. First Nations mothers are 3-5 times more likely than other mothers to experience maternal mortality; babies are 2-3 times more likely to be born preterm, low birth weight or not to survive their first year. 'Birthing on Country' incorporates a multiplicity of interpretations but conveys a resumption of maternity services in First Nations Communities with Community governance for the best start to life. Redesigned services offer women and families integrated, holistic care, including carer continuity from primary through tertiary services; services coordination and quality care including safe and supportive spaces. The overall aim of Building On Our Strengths (BOOSt) is to facilitate and assess Birthing on Country expansion into two settings - urban and rural; with scale-up to include First Nations-operated birth centres. This study will build on our team's earlier work - a Birthing on Country service established and evaluated in an urban setting, that reported significant perinatal (and organisational) benefits, including a 37% reduction in preterm births, among other improvements. METHODS: Using community-based, participatory action research, we will collaborate to develop, implement and evaluate new Birthing on Country care models. We will conduct a mixed-methods, prospective birth cohort study in two settings, comparing outcomes for women having First Nations babies with historical controls. Our analysis of feasibility, acceptability, clinical and cultural safety, effectiveness and cost, will use data including (i) women's experiences collected through longitudinal surveys (three timepoints) and yarning interviews; (ii) clinical records; (iii) staff and stakeholder views and experiences; (iv) field notes and meeting minutes; and (v) costs data. The study includes a process, impact and outcome evaluation of this complex health services innovation. DISCUSSION: Birthing on Country applies First Nations governance and cultural safety strategies to support optimum maternal, infant, and family health and wellbeing. Women's experiences, perinatal outcomes, costs and other operational implications will be reported for Communities, service providers, policy advisors, and for future scale-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia & New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry # ACTRN12620000874910 (2 September 2020).

A call for action that cannot go to voicemail: Research activism to urgently improve Indigenous perinatal health and wellbeing.

In this call to action, a coalition of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, United States and Canada argue for the urgent need for adequately funded Indigenous-led solutions to perinatal health inequities for Indigenous families in well-resourced settler-colonial countries. Authors describe examples of successful community-driven programs making a difference and call on all peoples to support and resource Indigenous-led perinatal health services by providing practical actions for individuals and different groups.

Better together: A qualitative exploration of women's perceptions and experiences of group antenatal care.

PROBLEM: Childbearing women from socio-economically disadvantaged communities and minority ethnic groups are less likely to access antenatal care and experience more adverse pregnancy outcomes. BACKGROUND: Group antenatal care aims to facilitate information sharing and social support. It is associated with higher rates of attendance and improved health outcomes. AIMS: To assess the acceptability of a bespoke model of group antenatal care (Pregnancy Circles) in an inner city community in England, understand how the model affects women's experiences of pregnancy and antenatal care, and inform further development and testing of the model. METHODS: A two-stage qualitative study comprising focus groups with twenty six local women, followed by the implementation of four Pregnancy Circles attended by twenty four women, which were evaluated using observations, focus groups and semi-structured interviews with participants. Data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: Pregnancy Circles offered an appealing alternative to standard antenatal care and functioned as an instrument of empowerment, mediated through increased learning and knowledge sharing, active participation in care and peer and professional relationship building. Multiparous women and women from diverse cultures sharing their experiences during Circle sessions was particularly valued. Participants had mixed views about including partners in the sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Group antenatal care, in the form of Pregnancy Circles, is acceptable to women and appears to enhance their experiences of pregnancy. Further work needs to be done both to test the findings in larger, quantitative studies and to find a model of care that is acceptable to women and their partners.

Testing the effectiveness of REACH Pregnancy Circles group antenatal care: protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal care is an important public health priority. Women from socially disadvantaged, and culturally and linguistically diverse groups often have difficulties with accessing antenatal care and report more negative experiences with care. Although group antenatal care has been shown in some settings to be effective for improving women's experiences of care and for improving other maternal as well as newborn health outcomes, these outcomes have not been rigorously assessed in the UK. A pilot trial will be conducted to determine the feasibility of, and optimum methods for, testing the effectiveness of group antenatal care in an NHS setting serving populations with high levels of social deprivation and cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity. Outcomes will inform the protocol for a future full trial. METHODS: This protocol outlines an individual-level randomised controlled external pilot trial with integrated process and economic evaluations. The two trial arms will be group care and standard antenatal care. The trial will involve the recruitment of 72 pregnant women across three maternity services within one large NHS Acute Trust. Baseline, outcomes and economic data will be collected via questionnaires completed by the participants at three time points, with the final scheduled for 4 months postnatal. Routine maternity service data will also be collected for outcomes assessment and economic evaluation purposes. Stakeholder interviews will provide insights into the acceptability of research and intervention processes, including the use of interpreters to support women who do not speak English. Pre-agreed criteria have been selected to guide the decision about whether or not to progress to a full trial. DISCUSSION: This pilot trial will determine if it is appropriate to proceed to a full trial of group antenatal care in this setting. If progression is supported, the pilot will provide authoritative high-quality evidence to inform the design and conduct of a trial in this important area that holds significant potential to influence maternity care, outcomes and experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN66925258. Registered 03 April 2017. Retrospectively registered.

`It makes sense and it works': Maternity care providers' perspectives on the feasibility of a group antenatal care model (Pregnancy Circles).

AIM: To test the feasibility of introducing a group antenatal care initiative (Pregnancy Circles) in an area with high levels of social deprivation and cultural diversity by exploring the views and experiences of midwives and other maternity care providers in the locality before and after the implementation of a test run of the group model. DESIGN: (i) Pre-implementation semi-structured interviews with local stakeholders. (ii) Post-implementation informal and semi-structured interviews and a reflective workshop with facilitating midwives, and semi-structured interviews with maternity managers and commissioners. Data were organised around three core themes of organisational readiness, the acceptability of the model, and its impact on midwifery practice, and analyzed thematically. SETTING: A large inner-city National Health Service Trust in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen stakeholders were interviewed prior to, and ten after, the group model was implemented. Feedback was also obtained from a further nine midwives and one student midwife who facilitated the Pregnancy Circles. INTERVENTION: Four Pregnancy Circles in community settings. Women with pregnancies of similar gestation were brought together for antenatal care incorporating information sharing and peer support. Women undertook their own blood pressure and urine checks, and had brief individual midwifery checks in the group space. FINDINGS: Dissatisfaction with current practice fuelled organisational readiness and the intervention was both possible and acceptable in the host setting. A perceived lack of privacy in a group setting, the ramifications of devolving blood pressure and urine checks to women, and the involvement of partners in sessions were identified as sticking points. Facilitating midwives need to be adequately supported and trained in group facilitation. Midwives derived accomplishment and job satisfaction from working in this way, and considered that it empowered women and enhanced care. KEY CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported widespread dissatisfaction with current care provision. Pregnancy Circles were experienced as a safe environment in which to provide care, and one that enabled midwives to build meaningful relationships with women. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pre-registration education inadequately prepared midwives for group care. Addressing sticking points and securing management support for Pregnancy Circles is vital to sustain participation in this model of care.

"Continuity of care" experiences in midwifery education: perspectives from diverse stakeholders.

At least 20 continuity-of-care experiences are compulsory for student midwives in Australia, but little is known about this learning component. This paper presents an analysis of continuity experiences in one Region, incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives from student midwives, maternity managers and registered midwives, with the aim of better understanding and optimizing experiences. Qualitative methods were utilized, employing mainly focus groups. Participants included 15 student midwives from the Regional University, 14 midwives and six managers, employed at the Regional referral hospital. Four themes were identified in the data; "woman-centred care", "counting the cost", "mutual benefits" and "into the future". The significant benefits of student continuity-of-care experiences were outlined by all three participant groups. Continuity experiences for student midwives facilitated the development of a woman-centred focus in the provision of maternity care. While the experience was challenging for students it was beneficial not only to them, but to registered midwives, the maternity services, and ultimately childbearing women. In order to appropriately prepare midwives for existing and future maternity services, and to continue to meet women's needs in all service delivery models, we require midwives who are well grounded in a woman-centred care philosophy and have had exposure to various care models.

With good intentions: complexity in unsolicited informal support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding people's social lived experiences of chronic illness is fundamental to improving health service delivery and health outcomes, particularly in relation to self-management activity. In explorations of social lived experiences this paper uncovers the ways in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with chronic illness experience informal unsolicited support from peers and family members. METHODS: Nineteen Aboriginal and Torres Islander participants were interviewed in the Serious and Continuing Illness Policy and Practice Study (SCIPPS). Participants were people with Type 2 diabetes (N = 17), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (N = 3) and/or chronic heart failure (N = 11) and family carers (N = 3). Participants were asked to describe their experience of having or caring for someone with chronic illness. Content and thematic analysis of in-depth semi-structured interviews was undertaken, assisted by QSR Nvivo8 software. RESULTS: Participants reported receiving several forms of unsolicited support, including encouragement, practical suggestions for managing, nagging, growling, and surveillance. Additionally, participants had engaged in 'yarning', creating a 'yarn' space, the function of which was distinguished as another important form of unsolicited support. The implications of recognising these various support forms are discussed in relation to responses to unsolicited support as well as the needs of family carers in providing effective informal support. CONCLUSIONS: Certain locations of responsibility are anxiety producing. Family carers must be supported in appropriate education so that they can provide both solicited and unsolicited support in effective ways. Such educational support would have the added benefit of helping to reduce carer anxieties about caring roles and responsibilities. Mainstream health services would benefit from fostering environments that encourage informal interactions that facilitate learning and support in a relaxed atmosphere.