BackgroundIn the Netherlands, midwives are autonomous medical practitioners and 78% of pregnant women start their maternity care with a primary care midwife. Scientific research to support evidence-based practice in primary care midwifery in the Netherlands has been sparse. This paper describes the research design and methodology of the multicenter multidisciplinary prospective DELIVER study which is the first large-scale study evaluating the quality and provision of primary midwifery care.Methods/DesignBetween September 2009 and April 2011, data were collected from clients and their partners, midwives and other healthcare professionals across the Netherlands. Clients from twenty midwifery practices received up to three questionnaires to assess the expectations and experiences of clients (e.g. quality of care, prenatal screening, emotions, health, and lifestyle). These client data were linked to data from the Netherlands Perinatal Register and electronic client records kept by midwives. Midwives and practice assistants from the twenty participating practices recorded work-related activities in a diary for one week, to assess workload. Besides, the midwives were asked to complete a questionnaire, to gain insight into collaboration of midwives with other care providers, their tasks and attitude towards their job, and the quality of the care they provide. Another questionnaire was sent to all Dutch midwifery practices which reveals information regarding the organisation of midwifery practices, provision of preconception care, collaboration with other care providers, and provision of care to ethnic minorities. Data at client, midwife and practice level can be linked. Additionally, partners of pregnant women and other care providers were asked about their expectations and experiences regarding the care delivered by midwives and in six practices client consults were videotaped to objectively assess daily practice.DiscussionIn total, 7685 clients completed at least one questionnaire, 136 midwives and assistants completed a diary with work-related activities (response 100%), 99 midwives completed a questionnaire (92%), and 319 practices across the country completed a questionnaire (61%), 30 partners of clients participated in focus groups, 21 other care providers were interviewed and 305 consults at six midwifery practices were videotaped.The multicenter DELIVER study provides an extensive database with national representative data on the quality of primary care midwifery in the Netherlands. This study will support evidence-based practice in primary care midwifery in the Netherlands and contribute to a better understanding of the maternity care system.

BackgroundThe use of interventions in childbirth has increased the past decades. There is concern that some women might receive more interventions than they really need. For low-risk women, midwife-led birth settings may be of importance as a counterbalance towards the increasing rate of interventions. The effect of planned place of birth on interventions in the Netherlands is not yet clear. This study aims to give insight into differences in obstetric interventions and maternal outcomes for planned home versus planned hospital birth among women in midwife-led care.MethodsWomen from twenty practices across the Netherlands were included in 2009 and 2010. Of these, 3495 were low-risk and in midwife-led care at the onset of labour. Information about planned place of birth and outcomes, including instrumental birth (caesarean section, vacuum or forceps birth), labour augmentation, episiotomy, oxytocin in third stage, postpartum haemorrhage >1000 ml and perineal damage, came from the national midwife-led care perinatal database, and a postpartum questionnaire.ResultsWomen who planned home birth more often had spontaneous birth (nulliparous women aOR 1.38, 95 % CI 1.08–1.76, parous women aOR 2.29, 95 % CI 1.21–4.36) and less often episiotomy (nulliparous women aOR 0.73, 0.58–0.91, parous women aOR 0.47, 0.33–0.68) and use of oxytocin in the third stage (nulliparous women aOR 0.58, 0.42–0.80, parous women aOR 0.47, 0.37–0.60) compared to women who planned hospital birth. Nulliparous women more often had anal sphincter damage (aOR 1.75, 1.01–3.03), but the difference was not statistically significant if women who had caesarean sections were excluded. Parous women less often had labour augmentation (aOR 0.55, 0.36–0.82) and more often an intact perineum (aOR 1.65, 1.34–2.03). There were no differences in rates of vacuum/forceps birth, unplanned caesarean section and postpartum haemorrhage >1000 ml.ConclusionsWomen who planned home birth were more likely to give birth spontaneously and had fewer medical interventions.

BackgroundSuboptimal maternal health conditions (such as obesity, underweight, depression and stress) and health behaviours (such as smoking, alcohol consumption and unhealthy nutrition) during pregnancy have been associated with negative pregnancy outcomes. Our first aim was to give an overview of the self-reported health status and health behaviours of pregnant women under midwife-led primary care in the Netherlands. Our second aim was to identify potential differences in these health status indicators and behaviours according to educational level (as a proxy for socio-economic status) and ethnicity (as a proxy for immigration status).MethodsOur cross-sectional study (data obtained from the DELIVER multicentre prospective cohort study conducted from September 2009 to March 2011) was based on questionnaires about maternal health and prenatal care, which were completed by 6711 pregnant women. The relationships of education and ethnicity with 13 health status indicators and 10 health behaviours during pregnancy were examined using multilevel multiple logistic regression analyses, adjusted for age, parity, number of weeks pregnant and either education or ethnicity.ResultsLower educated women were especially more likely to smoke (Odds Ratio (OR) 11.3; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 7.6– 16.8); have passive smoking exposure (OR 6.9; 95 % CI 4.4–11.0); have low health control beliefs (OR 10.4; 95 % CI 8.5–12.8); not attend antenatal classes (OR 4.5; 95 % CI 3.5–5.8) and not take folic acid supplementation (OR 3.4; 95 % CI 2.7–4.4). They were also somewhat more likely to skip breakfast daily, be obese, underweight and depressed or anxious. Non-western women were especially more likely not to take folic acid supplementation (OR 4.5; 95 % CI 3.5–5.7); have low health control beliefs (OR 4.1; 95 % CI 3.1–5.2) and not to attend antenatal classes (OR 3.3; 95 % CI 2.0–5.4). They were also somewhat more likely to have nausea, back pains and passive smoking exposure.ConclusionsSubstantial socio-demographic inequalities persist with respect to many health-related issues in medically low risk pregnancies in the Netherlands. Improved strategies are needed to address the specific needs of socio-demographic groups at higher risk and the structures underlying social inequalities in pregnant women.

BackgroundLabour pain is a major concern for women, their partners and maternity health care professionals. However, little is known about Dutch midwives’ perceptions of working with women experiencing labour pain. The aim of this study was to explore midwives’ perceptions of supporting women in dealing with pain during labour.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative focus group study with four focus groups, including a total of 23 midwives from 23 midwifery practices across the country. Purposive sampling was used to select the practices. The constant comparison method of Glaser and Straus (1967, ren. 1995) was used to gain an understanding of midwives’ perceptions regarding labour pain management.ResultsWe found two main themes. The first theme concerned the midwives’ experienced professional role conflict, which was reflected in their approach of labour pain management along a spectrum from “working with pain” to a “pain relief” approach. The second theme identified situational factors, including time constraints; discontinuity of care; role of the partner; and various cultural influences, that altered the context in which care was provided and how midwives saw their professional role.ConclusionMidwives felt challenged by the need to balance their professional attitude towards normal birth and labour pain, which favours working with pain, with the shift in society towards a wider acceptance of pharmacological pain management during labour. This shift compelled them to redefine their professional identity.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0795-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract