Centre for Health & Social Care Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, 32 Collegiate Crescent, Sheffield, UK.
Midwifery. 2012 Apr;28(2):146-9. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.01.009. Epub 2012 Feb 24.
Drawing on the findings from a Cochrane systematic review of midwife-led care vs. other models of maternity care, this article discusses maternity organisation of care, women's choice of mode of birth and a global trend in reducing normality of childbirth. The review included 11 trials involving 12,276 women. The results showed that women who received models of midwife led care were less likely to experience fetal loss before 24 weeks' gestation, less likely to have regional analgesia, less likely to have instrumental birth, less likely to have an episiotomy (with no significant differences in perineal lacerations), and were more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife, more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth, initiate breast feeding and more stated to feel in control. In addition, their babies were more likely to have a shorter length of hospital stay. No statistically significant differences were observed in fetal loss/neonatal death of at least 24 weeks or in overall fetal/neonatal death between women who were allocated to the midwifery led care and those in the medical led care. In light of these findings, the interrelationship between social organisation of maternity care, philosophy of care and choice is explored using case examples with high and low rates of caesarean section rates. A worldwide overview of vaginal birth and caesarean section rates as indicators of normality (and lack of it) is also presented. Questions are raised with regard to the fast growing rate of caesarean section rates particularly among middle income countries. The rate of caesarean section is twice as much in private settings compared to public hospitals in these countries. In conclusion, the importance of sharing good practice among countries with particular attention to social location of midwifery, mobilisation of consumer groups as well as education of maternity health-care professionals and women, in facilitation of an effective 'informed choice', is highlighted. Areas for further global research on factors, which may influence women's choice of mode of birth are debated.
本文借鉴了一项 Cochrane 系统评价的研究结果,该评价比较了导乐分娩与其他模式的产妇护理,讨论了产妇护理的组织方式、女性对分娩方式的选择以及全球降低正常分娩率的趋势。该综述纳入了 11 项试验,涉及 12276 名女性。结果显示,接受导乐分娩模式的女性在 24 周前胎儿丢失的可能性较小,接受区域镇痛的可能性较小,使用器械分娩的可能性较小,接受会阴切开术的可能性较小(会阴裂伤无显著差异),且更有可能由熟悉的助产士接生,更有可能自然分娩、开始母乳喂养,并更多地表示能够控制自己的分娩过程。此外,她们的婴儿更有可能在医院的住院时间较短。在接受导乐分娩和医疗主导分娩的女性中,至少 24 周的胎儿丢失/新生儿死亡或总体胎儿/新生儿死亡之间没有观察到统计学上的显著差异。鉴于这些发现,本文使用高剖宫产率和低剖宫产率的案例,探讨了产妇护理的社会组织、护理理念和选择之间的相互关系。还展示了全球范围内阴道分娩和剖宫产率作为正常(或不正常)指标的概述。针对剖宫产率特别是在中等收入国家快速增长的问题提出了质疑。在这些国家,私立医院的剖宫产率是公立医院的两倍。总之,强调了在国家之间分享良好实践的重要性,特别要关注助产士的社会定位、消费者群体的动员以及对产妇保健专业人员和妇女的教育,以促进有效的“知情选择”。还讨论了进一步进行全球研究的领域,这些研究可能会影响女性对分娩方式的选择。