Many studies highlight how health is influenced by the settings in which people live, work, and receive health care. in particular, the setting in which childbirth takes place is highly influential. The physiological processes of women's labor and birth are enhanced in optimal ("salutogenic," or health promoting) environments. Settings can also make a difference in the way maternity staff practice. This paper focuses on how positive examples of italian birth places incorporate principles of healthy settings. The "Margherita" Birth centre in Florence and the Maternity Home "il Nido" in Bologna were purposively selected as cases where the physical-environmental setting seemed to reflect an embedded model of care that promotes health in the context of childbirth. Narrative accounts of the project design were collected from lead professional and direct inspections performed to elicit the key salutogenic components of the physical layout. comparisons between cases with a standard hospital labor ward layout were performed. cross-case similarities emerged. The physical characteristics mostly related to optimal settings were a result of collaborative design decisions with stakeholders and users, and the resulting local intention to maximize safe physiological birth, psychosocial wellbeing, facilitate movement and relaxation, prioritize space for privacy, intimacy, and favor human contact and relationships. The key elements identified in this paper have the potential to inform further investigations for the design or renovation of all birth places (including hospitals) in order to optimize the salutogenic component of any setting in any country.

Aim: Barcelona Hospital Campus Vall D'Hebron (Hospital A) and Hospital Mollet (Hospital B) provide women with humanized maternity care, but there are differences in dimension and complexity. This study describes the obstetrical results and women's childbirth satisfaction of these two Spanish hospitals. Design: A correlational descriptive study was conducted with 194 postpartum women. Methods: Satisfaction and birth experience were evaluated using the CEQ-E and the MCSRSS questionnaires. A bivariate and discriminant analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between satisfaction and the recorded variables. Results: There were significant differences between both hospitals in prenatal class attendance (p = 0.006), same midwife during all process (p = 0.000), and mode of delivery (p = 0.009). Significant association was found among overall satisfaction and immediate breastfeeding in the delivery room (p = 0.050), skin-to-skin contact (p = 0.004), beginning of labour (p = 0.031), and delivery mode (p = 0.011). The total questionnaires scores mean of CEQ-E and MCSRSS were Hospital A 66.97 and 130.64; Hospital B 67.98 and 129.98, respectively. Women at both hospitals were satisfied with different aspects. Conclusion: Despite obtaining similar results in both hospitals, there are better obstetrical outcomes in hospital B with less complexity. However, women's satisfaction scores are slightly different in certain questionnaires subscales between both hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The publication of the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations on antenatal care in 2016 introduced the perspective of women as a necessary component of clinical guidelines in maternity care. WHO highlights the crucial role played by evidence-based recommendations in promoting and supporting normal birth processes and a positive experience of pregnancy. This paper aims to explore and critically appraise recommendations of national antenatal care guidelines across European countries in comparison with the WHO guideline. METHODS: We collected guidelines from country partners of the EU COST Action IS1405. Components of the documents structure and main recommendations within and between them were compared and contrasted with the WHO guideline on antenatal care with a particular interest in exploring whether and how women's experience were included in the recommendations. RESULTS: Eight out of eleven countries had a single national guideline on antenatal care while three countries did not. National guidelines mostly focused on care of healthy women with a straightforward pregnancy. The level of concordance between the national and the WHO recommendations varied along a continuum from almost total concordance to almost total dissonance. Women's views and experiences were accounted for in some guidelines, but mostly not placed at the same level of importance as clinical items. CONCLUSIONS: Findings outline convergences and divergences with the WHO recommendations. They highlight the need for considering women's views more in the development of evidence-based recommendations and in practice for positive impacts on perinatal health at a global level, and on the experiences of each family.

No abstract

No abstract