Care of women and application of the principle of informed consent to interventions during birth in the COVID-19 pandemic period.

INTRODUCTION: In the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, inadequate intrapartum care protocols were in place. Many organizations have responded promptly and recognized the importance of adherence to appropriate guidelines. The International Confederation of Midwives issued an official statement on 29 March 2020, which states that every woman has the right to information, to give consent, to refuse consent, and to have her choices and decisions respected and upheld. No research has been conducted in Lithuania to reveal the care of women who gave birth during the COVID-19 pandemic and the application of informed consent to interventions. METHODS: This study is quantitative of cross-sectional design. An anonymous questionnaire survey method was used. One hundred fifty-two women who gave birth in Lithuania during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 - May 2022) and had COVID-19 infection during childbirth, participated in the study. Statistical data analysis was performed. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, women's care was characterized by always or almost always adequate information from health professionals on all issues to minimize the stress of new procedures necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic and allowing them to stay with newborns as long as possible. The application of the principle of informed consent to interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic was not always applied to the performance of transvaginal examination manual compression of the uterine fundus to facilitate the expulsion period. CONCLUSIONS: Most women said that they were properly informed by healthcare professionals about all questions related to the new procedures that became necessary due to the COVID-19 pandemic and felt included in their own choice. However, mothers felt the need of relatives during childbirth, and consent was often not asked for vaginal examination.

Women's experiences of childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic in Lithuania.

INTRODUCTION: Childbirth experiences depend on environmental factors, the provision of qualified medical and non-medical care, and the woman's psychological well-being. Stress experienced during pregnancy and childbirth affects a woman's psychological well-being. The aim of this study was to determine the care of women who gave birth during the COVID-19 pandemic in Lithuania. METHODS: This qualitative study used an interview method to reveal women's childbirth experiences during and before the pandemic in Lithuania. The data obtained during the interview were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Interviews were taken from 15 women who gave birth at least twice, i.e. the first time until March 2020 (but not earlier than March 2019) and gave birth again during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 - January 2021). RESULTS: A total of 15 women participanted in the interviews. The experience of childbirth before the COVID-19 pandemic was seen as largely positive by women, but childbirth during the COVID-19 pandemic was mentioned as more complex and negative because of the challenges posed by the pandemic, but easier for other reasons not affected by the pandemic. The results of our study show that a higher proportion of women were satisfied with delivery care in hospitals, were happy, and praised the work of midwives and other staff, which mainly contributed to a positive experience. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic posed particular challenges to women's childbirth experiences, and not enough attention was paid to mental health. The stress that was exacerbated during the pandemic period had a profound impact on the pregnant woman in Lithuania.

Lithuanian midwives' attitudes and actions during low-risk birth.

INTRODUCTION: This study sheds light on the attitudes and practices of Lithuanian midwives during low-risk births. The aim is to reveal how autonomous work is incorporated into daily routines, how care is oriented towards the mother, and how care is delivered before and during interventions. It highlights midwives' views on both their own and their colleagues' actions during labor, what is aimed for and what outcome is expected. METHODS: A qualitative research method was chosen. Midwives were interviewed individually in February and April 2022 by random sampling and semi-structured interviews, after the purpose of the survey was explained and their consent was given to use the information only for scientific work purposes. Midwives were recruited through social networks, sharing information about the study and its nature. All data were coded and analyzed in aggregate form. Ten midwives working in the labor ward participated in the study. RESULTS: From the midwives' point of view, every birth and its experience are unique. Midwives work together with mothers to achieve the common goal of a positive birth experience. Communication with the mother and her family, good rapport, clear information and informed decision-making are key aspects for midwives during labor. The midwife's actions must be reasonable and purposeful, with a preference for non-medicated methods of pain and stress relief. CONCLUSIONS: A low-risk birth that is within the competence of midwives is one in which there is a low likelihood of medical interventions. Midwives are encouraged to minimize the use of interventions and to provide high quality delivery care.

Rates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean and quality of maternal and newborn health care in private versus public facilities: Results of the IMAgiNE EURO study in 16 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic by facility type among 16 European countries, comparing rates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean. METHODS: Women who gave birth in the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020, to February 7, 2022, answered a validated online questionnaire. Rates of instrumental birth, instrumental vaginal birth, and cesarean, and a QMNC index were calculated for births in public versus private facilities. RESULTS: Responses from 25 206 participants were analyzed. Women giving birth in private compared with public facilities reported significantly more frequent total cesarean (32.5% vs 19.0%; aOR 1.70; 95% CI 1.52-1.90), elective cesarean (17.3% vs 7.8%; aOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.65-2.19), and emergency cesarean before labor (7.4% vs 3.9%; aOR 1.39; 95% CI 1.14-1.70) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons), with analyses by country confirming these results. QMNC index results were heterogeneous across countries and regions in the same country and were largely affected by geographical distribution of regions rather than by type of facility alone. CONCLUSION: The study confirms that births in private facilities have higher odds of cesarean. It also suggests that QMNC should be closely monitored in all facilities to achieve high-quality care, independent of facility type or geographical distribution. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04847336.