Premium
The Attitudes and Beliefs of Australian Midwives and Obstetricians About Birth Options and Labor Interventions
Author(s) -
Coates Dominiek,
Donnolley Natasha,
Henry Amanda
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of midwifery and women's health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.543
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1542-2011
pISSN - 1526-9523
DOI - 10.1111/jmwh.13168
Subject(s) - psychological intervention , medicine , context (archaeology) , maternity care , place of birth , intervention (counseling) , obstetrics , family medicine , pregnancy , nursing , population , environmental health , paleontology , biology , genetics
The global rise in the rate of induction of labor and cesarean birth shows considerable unexplained variation both within and between countries. Prior research suggests that the extent to which women are engaged in the decision‐making process about birth options, such as elective cesarean, induction of labor, or use of fetal monitoring, is heavily influenced by clinician beliefs and preferences. The aim of this study was to investigate the beliefs about labor interventions and birth options held by midwives and obstetric medical staff from 8 Sydney hospitals and assess how the health care providers’ beliefs were associated with discipline or years of experience. Methods This is a survey study of midwives and obstetric staff that was distributed between November 2018 and July 2019. Modified from the previously validated birth attitudes survey for the Australian context, survey domains include (1) maternal choice and woman's role in birth, (2) safety by mode or place of birth, (3) attitudes toward cesarean birth for preventing urinary incontinence, (4) approaches to decrease cesarean birth rates, and (5) fears of birth mode. Responses were compared between professions and within professions by years of experience using Mann‐Whitney U testing. Results A total of 217 midwives and 58 medical staff completed the survey (response rate, 30.5%). Midwifery staff responses generally favored a physiologic approach to birth, versus beliefs more in favor of intervention (particularly cesarean birth) among medical staff. There was interprofessional discrepancy on most items, particularly regarding safety of mode or place of birth and approaches to decrease cesarean birth rates. Within disciplines, there was more variation in medical staff attitudes than within the midwifery staff. No clinically important differences in beliefs by years of experience were noted. Discussion Clinicians need to be aware of their own beliefs and preferences about birth as a potential source of bias when counselling women, particularly when there are a range of treatment options and the evidence may not strongly favor one option over another. As both groups had similar perceptions about the importance of women's autonomy, shared decision‐making training could help bridge belief gaps and improve care around birth decisions.