Background Childbearing women have been using various herbs to assist with pregnancy, labour and birth for centuries. One of the most common is raspberry leaf. The evidence base for the use of raspberry leaf is however under-developed. It is incumbent on midwives and other maternity care providers to provide women with evidence-based information so they can make informed choices. The aim of this study was to review the research literature to identify the evidence base on the biophysical effects, safety and efficacy of raspberry leaf in pregnancy. Methods A systematic, integrative review was undertaken. Six databases were searched to identify empirical research papers published in peer reviewed journals including in vitro, in vivo, human and animal studies. The search included the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection and AMED. Identified studies were appraised independently by two reviewers using the MMAT appraisal instrument. An integrative approach was taken to analysis. Results Thirteen studies were included. Five were laboratory studies using animal and human tissue, two were experiments using animals, and six were human studies. Included studies were published between 1941 and 2016. Raspberry leaf has been shown to have biophysical effects on animal and human smooth muscle including the uterus. Toxity was demonstrated when high doses were administered intravenously or intaperitoneally in animal studies. Human studies have not shown any harm or benefit though one study demonstrated a clinically meaningful (though non-statistically significant) reduction in length of second stage and augmentation of labour in women taking raspberry leaf. Conclusions Many women use raspberry leaf in pregnancy to facilitate labour and birth. The evidence base supporting the use of raspeberry leaf in pregnancy is weak and further research is needed to address the question of raspberry leaf’s effectiveness.

No abstract

The present study aims to explore, in the national context of Norway, how municipal socioeconomic indicators affect anxiety and depressive symptom scores among senior high school students and whether this potential municipal effect is dependent on the adolescents’ family affluence levels. This cross-sectional study is based on questionnaire data collected in five waves (2014–2018) of the Ungdata survey. The study sample consisted of 97,460 adolescents aged 16–18 years attending high school in 156 municipalities in Norway. Measures of psychological distress, depression, and anxiety symptoms were based on the screening instrument, Hopkins Symptom Checklist-10. Two-level random intercept models were fitted to distinguish the individual and municipality sources of variation in adolescents’ mental health. In general, the results indicate substantial psychological symptom load among the study sample. Inequalities in adolescents’ psychological distress between family affluence groups were evident, with the lowest symptom loads in the most affluent families. The predicted depressive and anxiety symptoms among the students increased slightly along with the percentage of municipal residents with tertiary educations and with increasing income inequalities in their residential municipality. However, the interaction models suggest that the adverse effects of higher municipal education level and greater income inequality are, to a certain extent, steepest for adolescents with medium family affluence. This study highlights two key findings. Both municipality effects and family affluence account for a relatively small proportion of the total variance in the students’ psychological symptoms loads; however, the mental health inequalities we explored between socioeconomic strata on both the individual and municipal levels are not insignificant in a public health perspective. Results are discussed in the context of psychosocial mechanisms related to social comparison and perceptions of social status that may be applicable in egalitarian welfare states such as Norway.

No abstract

This chapter presents midwifery as unique amongst the healthcare professions because it mostly focuses on physiological processes and a period of transition in the life of a woman and her family. Thus, midwives work across a childbearing continuum and the health-ease dis-ease continuum. The “midwifery model of care” and its approach to childbearing focuses on wellness rather than illness and works closely with women to help them mobilize their own resources to move towards greater health. But the contrasting pathogenic approach to maternity care is still ubiquitous in contemporary healthcare provision with over-medicalization of childbirth and overuse of interventions, which can also cause more harm than good.While there is resonance between midwifery practice and salutogenesis, research examining the relationship is still in its infancy. Few researchers explicitly draw on salutogenic theory. Of these, few studies and scoping reviews are described in more detail. They suggest that there is an alignment between salutogenesis and midwifery practice.The chapter concludes by stressing that salutogenesis, with its focus on health rather than pathology, offers a promising way forward to underline that much of midwifery work is health promotion and must be operationalized accordingly in midwifery practice.