Dataset Information

Effects of the birthing room environment on vaginal births and client-centred outcomes for women at term planning a vaginal birth: BE-UP, a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Caesarean sections (CSs) are associated with increased risk for maternal morbidity and mortality. The recommendations of the recently published German national health goal 'Health in Childbirth' (Gesundheit rund um die Geburt) promote vaginal births (VBs). This randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluates the effects of a complex intervention pertaining to the birth environment, based on the sociology of technical artefacts and symbolic interactionism. The intervention is intended to foster an upright position and mobility during labour, which lead to a higher probability of VB.

Methods/design

This study is an active controlled superiority trial with a two-arm parallel design. The complex intervention involves making changes to the birthing room to encourage an upright position and mobility of women in labour and to relax them, which may help them to cope with labour and may increase self-determination. This may result in more VBs. Included in the study are primiparae and multiparae with a singleton foetus in cephalic presentation at term planning a VB. According to the sample size calculation, 3800 women in 12 obstetrical units are to be included. Randomisation will be performed centrally and controlled by an independent coordination centre. Blinding of participants and staff is not possible. Key outcomes are VB, episiotomy, perineal tears, epidural analgesia, critical outcome of newborn at term and maternal self-determination during birth. Additionally, a health economic evaluation will be performed.

Discussion

This is the first adequately powered multicentre RCT examining the effect of a redesigned birthing room on the probability of a VB and patient-centred physical and emotional outcomes. An increase in the number of VBs by 5% from a baseline of 74% to 79% would result in 21,000 women per year experiencing a VB rather than a CS in Germany. Expected benefits are greater self-determination during labour, improved physical and emotional client-centred outcomes, fewer medical interventions and a reduction in health-care costs.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS00012854 . Registered on 7 March 2018.

SUBMITTER: Ayerle GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6245933 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of azithromycin reduces maternal infection in women during unplanned cesarean delivery, but its effect on those with planned vaginal delivery is unknown. Data are needed on whether an intrapartum oral dose of azithromycin would reduce maternal and offspring sepsis or death.MethodsIn this multicountry, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, we assigned women who were in labor at 28 weeks' gestation or more and who were planning a vaginal delivery to receive a single 2-g oral dose of azithromycin or placebo. The two primary outcomes were a composite of maternal sepsis or death and a composite of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis. During an interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial for maternal benefit.ResultsA total of 29,278 women underwent randomization. The incidence of maternal sepsis or death was lower in the azithromycin group than in the placebo group (1.6% vs. 2.4%), with a relative risk of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.79; P<0.001), but the incidence of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis was similar (10.5% vs. 10.3%), with a relative risk of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.09; P = 0.56). The difference in the maternal primary outcome appeared to be driven mainly by the incidence of sepsis (1.5% in the azithromycin group and 2.3% in the placebo group), with a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.77); the incidence of death from any cause was 0.1% in the two groups (relative risk, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.97). Neonatal sepsis occurred in 9.8% and 9.6% of the infants, respectively (relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.10). The incidence of stillbirth was 0.4% in the two groups (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.53); neonatal death within 4 weeks after birth occurred in 1.5% in both groups (relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.24). Azithromycin was not associated with a higher incidence in adverse events.ConclusionsAmong women planning a vaginal delivery, a single oral dose of azithromycin resulted in a significantly lower risk of maternal sepsis or death than placebo but had little effect on newborn sepsis or death. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; A-PLUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03871491.).

Project description:ObjectiveIn the last decade, there has been an increased interest in exploring the impact of the physical birth environment on midwifery practice and women's birth experiences. This study is based on the hypothesis that the environment for birth needs greater attention to improve some of the existing challenges in modern obstetric practice, for example the increasing use of augmentation and number of interventions during delivery.Study designA randomized controlled trial was carried out to study the effect of giving birth in a specially designed "birth environment room" on the use of augmentation during labor. The study took place at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Herning Hospital, Denmark and included 680 nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term with a fetus in cephalic presentation. Women were randomly allocated to either the "birth environment room" or a standard birth room. The primary outcome was augmentation of labor by use of oxytocin. Secondary outcomes were duration of labor, use of pharmacological pain relief, and mode of birth. Differences were estimated as relative risks (RR) and presented with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsNo difference was found on the primary outcome, augmentation of labor (29.1% in the "birth environment room" versus 30.6% in the standard room, RR 0.97; 0.89-1.08). More women in the "birth environment room" used the bathtub (60.6% versus 52.4%, RR 1.18; 1.02-1.37), whereas a tendency to lower use of epidural analgesia (22.6% versus 28.2%) did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.87; 0.74-1.02). The chance of an uncomplicated birth was almost similar in the two groups (70.6% in the "birth environment room" versus 72.6% in the standard room, RR 0.97; 0.88-1.07) as were duration of labor (mean 7.9 hours in both groups).ConclusionsBirthing in a specially designed physical birth environment did not lower use of oxytocin for augmentation of labor. Neither did it have any effect on duration of labor, use of pharmacological pain relief, and chance of birthing without complications. We recommend that future trials are conducted in birth units with greater improvement potentials.

Project description:BackgroundProgesterone administration has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women at high risk, but there is uncertainty about longer term effects on the child.MethodsWe did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vaginal progesterone, 200 mg daily taken from 22-24 to 34 weeks of gestation, on pregnancy and infant outcomes in women at risk of preterm birth (because of previous spontaneous birth at ≤34 weeks and 0 days of gestation, or a cervical length ≤25 mm, or because of a positive fetal fibronectin test combined with other clinical risk factors for preterm birth [any one of a history in a previous pregnancy of preterm birth, second trimester loss, preterm premature fetal membrane rupture, or a history of a cervical procedure to treat abnormal smears]). The objective of the study was to determine whether vaginal progesterone prophylaxis given to reduce the risk of preterm birth affects neonatal and childhood outcomes. We defined three primary outcomes: fetal death or birth before 34 weeks and 0 days gestation (obstetric), a composite of death, brain injury, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (neonatal), and a standardised cognitive score at 2 years of age (childhood), imputing values for deaths. Randomisation was done through a web portal, with participants, investigators, and others involved in giving the intervention, assessing outcomes, or analysing data masked to treatment allocation until the end of the study. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14568373.FindingsBetween Feb 2, 2009, and April 12, 2013, we randomly assigned 1228 women to the placebo group (n=610) and the progesterone group (n=618). In the placebo group, data from 597, 587, and 439 women or babies were available for analysis of obstetric, neonatal, and childhood outcomes, respectively; in the progesterone group the corresponding numbers were 600, 589, and 430. After correction for multiple outcomes, progesterone had no significant effect on the primary obstetric outcome (odds ratio adjusted for multiple comparisons [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·61-1·22) or neonatal outcome (OR 0·62, 0·38-1·03), nor on the childhood outcome (cognitive score, progesterone group vs placebo group, 97·3 [SD 17·9] vs 97·7 [17·5]; difference in means -0·48, 95% CI -2·77 to 1·81). Maternal or child serious adverse events were reported in 70 (11%) of 610 patients in the placebo group and 59 (10%) of 616 patients in the progesterone group (p=0·27).InterpretationVaginal progesterone was not associated with reduced risk of preterm birth or composite neonatal adverse outcomes, and had no long-term benefit or harm on outcomes in children at 2 years of age.FundingEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wales.

Project description:BackgroundThe exposure risks to front-line health care workers caring for patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing surgery or obstetric delivery are unclear, and an understanding of sample types that may harbour virus is important for evaluating risk. We sought to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA from patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing surgery or obstetric delivery was present in the peritoneal cavity of male and female patients, in the female reproductive tract, in the environment of the surgery or delivery suite (surgical instruments or equipment used, air or floors), and inside the masks of the attending health care workers.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study from November 2020 to May 2021 at 2 tertiary academic Toronto hospitals, during urgent surgeries or obstetric deliveries for patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in patient, environmental and air samples was identified by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Air samples were collected using both active and passive sampling techniques. The primary outcome was the proportion of health care workers' masks positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. We included adult patients with positive RT-PCR nasal swab undergoing obstetric delivery or urgent surgery (from across all surgical specialties).ResultsA total of 32 patients (age 20-88 yr) were included. Nine patients had obstetric deliveries (6 cesarean deliveries), and 23 patients (14 male) required urgent surgery from the orthopedic or trauma, general surgery, burn, plastic surgery, cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, vascular surgery, gastroenterology and gynecologic oncology divisions. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 20 of 332 (6%) patient and environmental samples collected: 4 of 24 (17%) patient samples, 5 of 60 (8%) floor samples, 1 of 54 (2%) air samples, 10 of 23 (43%) surgical instrument or equipment samples, 0 of 24 cautery filter samples and 0 of 143 (95% confidence interval 0-0.026) inner surface of mask samples.InterpretationDuring the study period of November 2020 to May 2021, we found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a small but important number of samples obtained in the surgical and obstetric operative environment. The finding of no detectable virus inside the masks worn by the health care teams would suggest a low risk of infection for health care workers using appropriate personal protective equipment.

Project description:BackgroundVaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is a safe mode of birth for most women but internationally VBAC rates remain low. In Australia women planning a VBAC may experience different models of care including continuity of care (CoC). There are a limited number of studies exploring the impact and influence of CoC on women's experiences of planning a VBAC. Continuity of care (CoC) with a midwife has been found to increase spontaneous vaginal birth and decrease some interventions. Women planning a VBAC prefer and benefit from CoC with a known care provider. This study aimed to explore the influence, and impact, of continuity of care on women's experiences when planning a VBAC in Australia.MethodsThe Australian VBAC survey was designed and distributed via social media. Outcomes and experiences of women who had planned a VBAC in the past 5 years were compared by model of care. Standard fragmented maternity care was compared to continuity of care with a midwife or doctor.ResultsIn total, 490 women completed the survey and respondents came from every State and Territory in Australia. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to feel in control of their decision making and feel their health care provider positively supported their decision to have a VBAC. Women who had CoC with a midwife were more likely to have been active in labour, experience water immersion and have an upright birthing position. Women who received fragmented care experienced lower autonomy and lower respect compared to CoC.ConclusionThis study recruited a non-probability based, self-selected, sample of women using social media. Women found having a VBAC less traumatic than their previous caesarean and women planning a VBAC benefited from CoC models, particularly midwifery continuity of care. Women seeking VBAC are often excluded from these models as they are considered to have risk factors. There needs to be a focus on increasing shared belief and confidence in VBAC across professions and an expansion of midwifery led continuity of care models for women seeking a VBAC.

Project description:BackgroundResearch shows that interventions to protect the sensitive physiological process of birth by improving the birthing room design may positively affect perinatal outcomes. It is, however, crucial to understand the mechanisms and contextual elements that influence the outcomes of such complex interventions. Hence, we aimed to explore care providers' experiences of the implementation of a new hospital birthing room designed to be more supportive of women's birth physiology.MethodsThis qualitative study reports on the implementation of the new birthing room, which was evaluated in the Room4Birth randomised controlled trial in Sweden. Individual interviews were undertaken with care providers, including assistant nurses, midwives, obstetricians, and managers (n = 21). A content analysis of interview data was conducted and mapped into the three domains of the Normalisation Process Theory coding manual: implementation context, mechanism, and outcome.ResultsThe implementation of the new room challenged the prevailing biomedical paradigm within the labour ward context and raised the care providers' awareness about the complex interplay between birth physiology and the environment. This awareness had the potential to encourage care providers to be more emotionally present, rather than to focus on monitoring practices. The new room also evoked a sense of insecurity due to its unfamiliar design, which acted as a barrier to integrating the room as a well-functioning part of everyday care practice.ConclusionOur findings highlight the disparity that existed between what care providers considered valuable for women during childbirth and their own requirements from the built environment based on their professional responsibilities. This identified disparity emphasises the importance of hospital birthing rooms (i) supporting women's emotions and birth physiology and (ii) being standardised to meet care providers' requirements for a functional work environment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03948815, 14/05/2019.