Women's decision-making autonomy in Dutch maternity care.

BACKGROUND: A positive childbirth experience is an important outcome of maternity care. A significant component of a positive birth experience is the ability to exercise autonomy in decision-making. In this study, we explore women's reports of their autonomy during conversations about their care with maternity care practitioners during pregnancy and childbirth. METHOD: Data were obtained from a cross-sectional survey of women living in The Netherlands that asked about their experiences during pregnancy and childbirth, including their role in conversations concerning decisions about their care. RESULTS: A total of 3494 women were included in this study. Most women scored high on autonomy in decision-making conversations. During the latter stage of pregnancy (32+ weeks) and in childbirth, women reported significantly lower levels of autonomy in their care conversations with obstetricians as compared with midwives. Linear regression analyses showed that women's perception of personal treatment increased women's reported autonomy in their conversations with both midwives and obstetricians. Almost half (49.1%) of the women who had at least one intervention during birth reported pressure to accept or submit to that intervention. This was indicated by 48.3% of women with induced labor, 47.3% who had an instrumental vaginal birth, 45.2% whose labor was augmented, and 41.9% of women who had a cesarean birth. CONCLUSIONS: In general, women's sense of autonomy in decision-making conversations during prenatal care and birth is high, but there is room for improvement, and this appeared most notably in conversations with obstetricians. Women's sense of autonomy can be enhanced with personal treatment, including shared decision-making and the avoidance of pressuring women to accept interventions.

Integrating women's voices in quality improvement for maternity care: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Improving the quality of maternity care is high on the national agenda in the Netherlands. One aspect gaining significant attention is integrating women's experiences - as users of maternity care - in this quality improvement. The aim of this study was to gain deeper insights into how maternity care professionals in Dutch Maternity Care Collaborations integrate women's voices into quality improvement as part of integrated maternity care and what role midwives can have in this. METHODS: This was a descriptive qualitative study, using semi-structured individual interviews and content analysis for an in-depth exploration of maternity care professionals' experiences and opinions on integrating women's voices in quality improvement. Participants were twelve maternity care professionals involved in quality improvement activities from eight Dutch Maternity Care Collaborations. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: 'Quality improvement based on women's voices is still in its infancy' and was experienced as an important but challenging topic; 'Collecting women's voices' was conducted, but needed more facilitation; Using women's voices' was hindered by a lack of expertise and a structured feedback and feedforward system; and 'Ensuring listening to women's voices' and integrating them in quality improvement required further facilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Care professionals emphasized that listening to women's voices for quality improvement is important but challenging due to the lack of expertise, organizational structure, time, and financial resources. A feasible implementation strategy including concrete support is recommended by maternity care professionals to boost action.

Use of quality indicators by obstetric caregivers in the Netherlands: A descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of quality indicators by obstetric caregivers in hospitals in the Netherlands. STUDY DESIGN: An anonymous, self-administered survey was conducted in a convenience sample of obstetricians and clinical midwives in Dutch hospitals. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data, both for all caregivers and stratified by hospital setting and profession (obstetricians and midwives). Differences between strata were tested at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: The response rate to the online questionnaire was 61% (n=171/279). Of all respondents 83% were aware of the quality indicators and 63% contributed to their registration. Caregivers received information about the indicators by mail or in meetings according to 64% (internal indicators) and 48% (external indicators) of the respondents. Of the respondents 56% (internal indicators) and 41% (external indicators) stated to use the results of indicators when designing plans to improve the quality of care. CONCLUSION: We conclude that obstetric quality indicators are not widely used by obstetricians and midwives in Dutch hospitals to improve quality of care. To improve quality of care and the effective use of quality indicators we suggest to focus first on registering outcome indicators. These indicators should be implemented in quality structures that ensure that action is taken.