Outcome of induction of labour at 41 weeks with foley catheter in midwifery-led care.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the outcome of induction of labour (IOL) with a Foley catheter in pregnancies at 41 weeks in midwifery-led care setting compared to consultant-led care setting. DESIGN: Mixed-methods cohort study at a midwifery - hospital partnership in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospectively, women undergoing IOL in midwifery-led care were recruited at a secondary hospital. This group was compared to a retrospective cohort, in which IOL was exclusively performed under consultant-led care. MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS: We compared 320 women whose induction started in midwifery-led care to a historical cohort of 320 women induced for the same reason under consultant-led care. Both groups exhibited similar rates of spontaneous vaginal births (64.2 %vs62.5 %). Caesarean section and assisted vaginal birth rates did not significantly differ. Maternal adverse outcomes were comparable, while neonatal adverse outcomes were significantly higher in the midwifery-led care group (8.1 %vs3.8 %; OR 2.27, 95 % CI 1.12-4.58). The use of pain relief was significantly lower in midwife-led care (65.3 %vs75.3 %; OR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.44-0.87). 20.6 % of births occurred in midwife-led care. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In this single-centre study, spontaneous vaginal birth rates following IOL with a Foley catheter were similar between midwife- and consultant-led care. However, the midwife-led group showed a higher risk of adverse neonatal outcomes, mainly early onset neonatal sepsis, with a minority eventually delivering under midwife-led care. Implications highlight the need for broader research, validation across diverse settings and exploration of patient and healthcare worker perspectives to refine the evolving midwifery-led care model.

Factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors involved in the decision to decline prenatal screening with noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). METHOD: A questionnaire study was conducted among 219 pregnant women in the Netherlands who had declined prenatal screening with NIPT (TRIDENT-2 study). Respondents were selectively recruited from three hospitals and 19 midwifery practices, primarily located in or near socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods. 44.3% of the respondents were of non-Western ethnic origin and 64.4% were religious. RESULTS: Most respondents (77.2%) found the decision to decline NIPT easy to make, and 59.8% had already made the decision before information about NIPT was offered. These respondents were more often religious, multigravida, and had adequate health literacy. The main reasons to decline NIPT were "I would never terminate my pregnancy" (57.1%) and "every child is welcome" (56.2%). For 16.9% of respondents, the out-of-pocket costs (175 euros) played a role in the decision, and the women in this group were more often nonreligious, primigravida, and had inadequate health literacy. CONCLUSION: The primary factors involved in the decision to decline NIPT were related to personal values and beliefs, consistent with autonomous choice. Out-of-pocket costs of NIPT hinder equal access for some pregnant women.

Non-invasive prenatal test uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

OBJECTIVE: Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) is increasingly being implemented worldwide. In public health programs, equitable access to healthcare is a fundamental principle which also applies to fetal aneuploidy screening. However, the out-of-pocket costs of NIPT may lead to sociodemographic disparities in uptake of screening. This study assessed whether there is a difference in the uptake of NIPT in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods compared to all other neighborhoods in the Netherlands, where NIPT is implemented in a national screening program (TRIDENT-2 study). METHOD: NIPT uptake, postal code and age of 156,562 pregnant women who received pre-test counselling for prenatal screening in 2018 were retrieved from the national prenatal screening database. Postal codes were used as a proxy to categorize neighborhoods as being either socioeconomically disadvantaged or other. The out-of-pocket costs for NIPT were €175. RESULTS: NIPT uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods was 20.3% whereas uptake in all other neighborhoods was 47.6% (p < 0.001). The difference in NIPT uptake between socioeconomic disadvantaged neighborhoods and other areas was smaller for the youngest maternal age-group (≤25 years) compared to other age-groups. CONCLUSION: The variation in uptake suggest underlying disparities in NIPT uptake, which undermines the goals of a national fetal aneuploidy screening program of providing reproductive autonomy and equitable access. This has ethical and policy implications for ensuring fair and responsible implementation of fetal aneuploidy screening.