Exploring psychosocial vulnerability among Dutch pregnant women: a register study.

In the Netherlands adverse perinatal outcomes are also associated with non-medical factors which vary across geographical locations. This study analyses the presence of non-medical vulnerabilities in pregnant women in two regions with high numbers of psychosocial adversity using the same definition for vulnerability in both regions. A register study was performed in 2 regions. Files from women in midwife-led care were analyzed using a standardized case report form addressing non-medical vulnerability based on the Rotterdam definition for vulnerability: measurement A in Groningen (n = 500), measurement B in South-Limburg (n = 538). Only in South-Limburg a second measurement was done after implementing an identification tool for vulnerability (C (n = 375)). In both regions about 10% of pregnant women had one or more urgent vulnerabilities and almost all of these women had an accumulation of several urgent and non-urgent vulnerabilities. Another 10% of women had an accumulation of three or more non-urgent vulnerabilities. This study showed that by using the Rotterdam definition of vulnerability in both regions about 20% of pregnant women seem to live in such a vulnerable situation that they may need psychosocial support. The definition seems a good tool to determine vulnerability. However, without considering protective factors it is difficult to establish precisely women's vulnerability. Research should reveal whether relevant women receive support and whether this approach contributes to better perinatal and child outcomes.

Development and validation of the Midwife Profiling Questionnaire assessing women's preferred perinatal care professional and knowledge of midwives' legal competences.

OBJECTIVES: Currently maternity care organisation is developing worldwide. Therefore insight in the position of the midwife is important. The 'Midwife Profiling Questionnaire' (MidProQ) measures women's preferred perinatal care professional and their knowledge of midwives' legal competences. MidProQ is based on the European legal framework and was tested in a pilot study. This study aims to determine its content and face validity. STUDY DESIGN: A two-phase validation study with a Delphi method questioning content experts (n = 10) on items relevance and clarity as well as its scale and face validity. Further semi-structured interviews were performed with lay experts (n = 10) to evaluate the questionnaire's clarity, layout, phrasing and wording. RESULTS: After round one, most questions (42/47) were considered content valid for relevance and clarity (Item Content Validity Index 0.80-1.00). Scale (Scale Content Validity Index 0.92) and face validity (Face Validity Index 0.89) of the entire instrument was obtained. Five questions were revised until item content (0.83-1.00), scale content (0.92) and face validity (1.00) were appropriate. Lay experts' suggestions for improving the readability and usability were taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a valid instrument to elicit women's preferred health professional for uncomplicated pregnancy, labour and childbirth and to determine their knowledge about midwives' legal competences. Our instrument can be valuable in identifying knowledge gaps and improving the knowledge of the general population about the midwifery profession and maternity care. Finally, the MidProQ may improve research in the domain of maternity care culture, scale up midwifery and facilitate a more women-centred care.