School of Nursing and Midwifery, College of Health and Science, University of Western Sydney, Building ER, Parramatta Campus, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia.
Women Birth. 2011 Dec;24(4):165-72. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2010.11.001. Epub 2010 Dec 16.
In February 2009 the Improving Maternity Services in Australia - The Report of the Maternity Services Review (MSR) was released and recommended improving women's access to and availability of birth centres. It was unclear if this was in response to an overwhelming request for birth centres in the submissions received by the commonwealth or a compromise for excluding homebirth from the maternity service reforms.
The aim of this paper was to examine what was said in the submissions to the MSR about birth centres.
Data for this study comprised 832 submissions to the MSR that are publicly available on the Commonwealth of Australia Department of Health and Ageing website. All 832 submissions were downloaded, and read for any mention of the words 'birth centre', 'birth center'. Content analysis was used to categorise and report the data.
Of the 832 submissions to the MSR 197 (24%) mentioned birth centres while 470 (60%) of the submissions mentioned homebirth. Only 31 (4%) of the submissions to the Maternity Review mentioned birth centres without mentioning home birth also. Most of the submissions emphasised that 'everything should be on the menu' when it came to place of birth and care provider. Reasons for choosing a birth centre were identified as: 'the best compromise available, 'the right and natural way' and 'the birth centre as safe'. Women had certain requirements of a birth centre that included: 'continuity of carer', 'midwife led', 'a sanctum from medicalised care', 'resources to cope with demand', 'close to home', and 'flexible guidelines and admission criteria'. Women weighed up a series of requirements when deciding whether to give birth in a birth centre.
The recommendation by the MSR to expand birth centres and ignore home birth is at odds with the strong view expressed that 'everything should be on the menu'. The requirements women described of birth centre care are also at odds with current trends.
If there is to be an expansion of birth centres, service providers need to make sure that women's views are central to the design. Women will not cease having homebirths due to expanded birth centre options.
2009 年 2 月,《改善澳大利亚产科服务-产科服务审查报告》(MSR)发布,建议改善妇女获得和提供生育中心的途径。这是否是对联邦收到的意见书要求增设生育中心的强烈回应,还是对将家庭分娩排除在产科服务改革之外的妥协,尚不清楚。
本文旨在研究生育中心在 MSR 意见书申述中的地位。
本研究的数据来源于在澳大利亚联邦卫生与老龄部网站上公开的 832 份 MSR 意见书。下载所有 832 份意见书,并阅读是否提及“生育中心”、“生育中心”等词。采用内容分析法对数据进行分类和报告。
在提交给 MSR 的 832 份意见书申述中,有 197 份(24%)提到了生育中心,而 470 份(60%)则提到了家庭分娩。在提交给产妇审查的 31 份意见书(4%)中,没有提到家庭分娩的生育中心也提到了家庭分娩。大多数意见书强调,在分娩地点和护理提供者方面,“一切都应该在菜单上”。选择生育中心的原因包括:“是现有情况下的最佳妥协”、“正确和自然的方式”以及“生育中心安全”。妇女对生育中心有一定的要求,包括:“护理人员的连续性”、“助产士主导”、“免受医疗化护理的影响”、“应对需求的资源”、“离家近”以及“灵活的指导方针和入院标准”。妇女在决定是否在生育中心分娩时,会权衡一系列要求。
MSR 建议扩大生育中心,忽略家庭分娩,这与强烈主张“一切都应该在菜单上”的观点不一致。妇女对生育中心护理的要求也与当前的趋势不一致。
如果要扩大生育中心,服务提供者需要确保妇女的意见成为设计的核心。由于增设了生育中心,妇女不会停止在家分娩。