Archive for May, 2012

Lamaze Connections

May 31st, 2012 by avatar

Lamaze Connections @Robin Elise WeissRobin Elise Weiss, MPH, LCCE, FACCE,  writes a guest post on a exciting new feature on the Lamaze International website for LCCEs. Learn more about Robin on her website.

If you haven’t noticed, there is a whole new section for educators on the Lamaze International site called Lamaze Connections. To get started, you must first be a member and log in at: http://lamazeinternational.org (You’ll see the words Log In in the upper right hand corner.)

Once you are logged in there are several things that you can do but today we’re going to talk about your Member Profile and Communities.  To get to your member profile, once you’ve logged in, select Member Center and use the drop down box to go to Member Profile.  Then you’ll see the basics of your membership profile. If you click edit you can do some amazing things from adding a photo and customizing your signature file to be used in internal communications, but you can also talk about your education, certifications and when and where you teach.  (There is even a spot to say that you’re not currently teaching, should you have a family crisis or be off having your own baby.) You can even add your blog, your favorite links or your Twitter feed. The beauty of this is that you can manage it yourself. You don’t have to ask for help or wait for someone else to do it. You can do it at whatever time is convenient for you.

I love having the ability to read about what others are doing, which make another feature very handy, it’s called My Communities. Again, once logged in, go to Member Center and use the pull down menu to go to the My Communities.  Here you can select some predetermined interest groups and topics.  These include:

  • Lamaze Board of Directors
  • Lamaze Childbirth Education Programs
  • Lamaze Committees
  • Lamaze Public Topics
    • Lamaze Public Discussion Forum:Lamaze Innovative Learning Forum 2012
    • Lamaze Public Discussion Forum:Birth Networks Special Interest Group
    • Lamaze Public Discussion Forum:International Special Interest Group
    • Lamaze Public Discussion Forum:Lamaze Certification
    • Lamaze Public Discussion Forum:Spanish Speaking Educators Special Interest Group
    • Lamaze Public Discussion Forum:Teaching Tips and Challenges

As you can see it’s a diverse group of topics to meet around and talk with other Lamaze members. This is a great way to meet other people who share similar interests to you, even when they don’t live down the street. You can even connect with other members using a My Network functions, similar to LinkedIn.  Here you can choose to follow other members to see what they are doing and/or connect with them. You can search by groups, committees, names, regions and other factors. Remember, all of this is new for us, that means we’re all just figuring out what it can do, but just think of the possibilities!

Robin Elise Weiss, MPH, LCCE, FACCE


Guest Posts, Lamaze News, Social Media

Elective Induction at Term Reduces Perinatal Mortality Without Increasing Operative Delivery? Looking Behind the Curtain

May 29th, 2012 by avatar

A recent study of elective induction at term purports to show that it would reduce perinatal mortality without affecting spontaneous birth rates, although it would increase admission to a special neonatal care unit if done before 41 weeks. The study, conducted in Scotland, analyzed outcomes of 1,271,549 women carrying a singleton, head-down baby of 37 to 40 weeks gestation who gave birth between 1981 and 2007. (Forty-one weeks was considered postterm.) Women with prior cesarean, breech baby, or placenta previa were excluded. Elective induction was defined as induction with no medical indications (hypertensive or kidney disorders, thromboembolic disease, diabetes, liver disorders, pre-existing medical disorder, antenatal investigation of abnormality, suspected fetal abnormality, fetal compromise, or previous stillbirth or neonatal death), and 176,136 women met these criteria. Perinatal mortality was defined as stillbirth or death within the first month, excluding deaths associated with congenital anomalies. Outcomes were adjusted for maternal age, parity (no prior births vs. one or more prior births), time period, and birth weight.

Investigators reported outcomes by week in two ways: women electively induced compared with women not electively induced who delivered after that week and women electively induced compared with women not electively induced who delivered in or after that week. I will report outcomes according to the second method because it is less biased.

Perinatal mortality rates declined from 2.4 per 1000 at 37 weeks to 1.6 per 1000 at 41 weeks in the “not electively induced” population and varied from 0.9 to 0.6 per 1000 in the electively induced population, showing no trend, which meant that the excess

Drewesque, via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution

perinatal mortality rate fell from 2.3 per 1000 more deaths at 37 weeks in the “not electively induced” population to 0.9 more at 41 weeks. That would seem to clinch the argument for elective term induction were it not for one fatal flaw: investigators did not compare similar populations. They isolated a low-risk—I may even say ultra-low-risk—group of women and compared them with everyone else, including women with the high-risk conditions listed above! Finding lower perinatal mortality rates should not be surprising. It would have been extraordinary if they had not.

Even with that advantage, more babies were admitted to special or intensive care nurseries after elective induction at every week through 40 weeks, which contradicts the current belief that elective delivery at 39 weeks poses no excess risk. Excesses declined from 94 more babies per 1000 with elective induction at 37 weeks to 10 more babies per 1000 at 40 weeks. (At 41 weeks, 3 more babies per 1000 were admitted to special or intensive care in the “not electively induced” population.)

What about finding similar spontaneous vaginal birth rates? Spontaneous birth rates were, indeed, similar between groups, but more women delivered via cesarean surgery in the electively induced group. Depending on the week, 0.3 to 1.5 more women per 100 electively induced had cesareans. Spontaneous birth rates were similar because the cesarean excess was offset by an excess of instrumental vaginal deliveries at each week in the “no elective induction” group. An excess of instrumental deliveries is concerning primarily because of the increased likelihood of anal sphincter injury; however, an excess in cesarean deliveries is far more serious, carrying as it does increased likelihood of severe maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in both current and future pregnancies.

Rob, Joyce, Alex & Nova's photostream, via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution

Rob, Joyce, Alex & Nova's photostream, via Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution

Furthermore, the investigators chose not to report cesarean rates according to parity. Women with a prior vaginal birth or births will be little affected by induction, but first-time mothers are a different story. Studies (see references below) comparing term elective induction with spontaneous onset report that elective induction roughly doubles the chance of cesarean with excesses ranging from 3 to 31 more women per 100 having labor end in cesarean. Three studies (Hannah et al. 1996, Kassab et al, 2011; Pavicic et al. 2009.) specifically evaluating elective induction at 41 weeks compared with expectant management for at least one more week in low-risk first-time mothers report a remarkably similar excess: 8 to 9 more cesareans per 100 women induced electively. In first-time mothers, then, the excess cesarean surgery rate was almost certainly much greater than the excess rate in the Scottish population overall.

So there you have it. Does elective induction at term save babies? We don’t know because the investigators compared apples to oranges. It certainly increases likelihood of admittance to special or intensive neonatal care through 40 weeks, an excess all the more ominous because comparison women were not all low risk. It’s also a safe bet that it substantially increases cesarean surgery rates in first-time mothers going by what other studies have found. And, again, the excess would likely have been greater even in the population overall had investigators compared low-risk women to low-risk women. Lesson learned: if you don’t look at what’s behind the curtain, you may get very misleading ideas of what is really going on.

Boulvain, M., Marcoux, S., Bureau, M., Fortier, M., & Fraser, W. (2001). Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 15(2), 131-138.

Cammu, H., Martens, G., Ruyssinck, G., & Amy, J. J. (2002). Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: A matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 186(2), 240-244.

Dublin, S., Lydon-Rochelle, M., Kaplan, R. C., Watts, D. H., & Critchlow, C. W. (2000). Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 183(4), 986-994.

Ehrenthal, D. B., Jiang, X., & Strobino, D. M. (2010). Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol, 116(1), 35-42.

Glantz, J. C. (2005). Elective induction vs. Spontaneous labor associations and outcomes. J Reprod Med, 50(4), 235-240.

Le Ray, C., Carayol, M., Breart, G., & Goffinet, F. (2007). Elective induction of labor: Failure to follow guidelines and risk of cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 86(6), 657-665.

Luthy, D. A., Malmgren, J. A., & Zingheim, R. W. (2004). Cesarean delivery after elective induction in nulliparous women: The physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 191(5), 1511-1515.

Macer, J. A., Macer, C. L., & Chan, L. S. (1992). Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: A retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 166(6 Pt 1), 1690-1696; discussion 1696-1697.

Maslow, A. S., & Sweeny, A. L. (2000). Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol, 95(6 Pt 1), 917-922.

Prysak, M., & Castronova, F. C. (1998). Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: A case-control analysis of safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol, 92(1), 47-52.

Seyb, S. T., Berka, R. J., Socol, M. L., & Dooley, S. L. (1999). Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol, 94(4), 600-607.

Vahratian, A., Zhang, J., Troendle, J. F., Sciscione, A. C., & Hoffman, M. K. (2005). Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 105(4), 698-704.

van Gemund, N., Hardeman, A., Scherjon, S. A., & Kanhai, H. H. (2003). Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset. A matched cohort study. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 56(3), 133-138.

Vardo, J. H., Thornburg, L. L., & Glantz, J. C. (2011). Maternal and neonatal morbidity among nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labor. J Reprod Med, 56(1-2), 25-30.

Vrouenraets, F. P., Roumen, F. J., Dehing, C. J., van den Akker, E. S., Aarts, M. J., & Scheve, E. J. (2005). Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol, 105(4), 690-697.

Yeast, J. D., Jones, A., & Poskin, M. (1999). Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: A review of 7001 consecutive inductions Am J Obstet Gynecol, 180(3 Pt 1), 628-633.

Cesarean Birth, Do No Harm, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Research, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

Research in Review: Reducing PPD Symptoms Among Black and Latina Mothers

May 24th, 2012 by avatar

This is a post by Science & Sensibility’s regular contributor, Walker Karraa, MFA, MA, CD(DONA)

The recently published study, “Reducing Postpartum Depressive Symptoms Among Black and Latina Mothers: A Randomized Controlled Trial” (Howell et al., 2012) has garnered attention among birth and perinatal mental health professionals.  The intention of this post is to (a) present the evidence given in the study; and (b) encourage community discussion, exploration, and solution-driven strategies for childbirth education practices that address postpartum depressive symptoms in communities of color.

Study Breakdown: Objectives and Rationale

The objective of the randomized controlled study was to “estimate the effectiveness of a behavioral educational intervention to reduce postpartum depressive symptoms among minority mothers” (p. 942).

The rationale for the study itself included the current quantitative data demonstrating the public health problems presented by the high prevalence of postpartum depressive symptoms in American women, and the subsequent negative effects of depressive symptoms on maternal quality of life, mother-infant attachment, and the impact of those symptoms on the social, cognitive, and emotional development of children (cited studies: Gaynes et al., 2005; Howell, Mora, Horowitz, & Leventhal, 2005; Martin et al., 2006; Zayas, Cunningham, McKee, & Jankowski, 2002). Most relevantly, rationale for a study examining African American and Latina mothers specifically was based in evidence of three previous studies that have demonstrated “the burden of postpartum depressive symptoms is especially high in low-income black and Latina women” (p. 942; cited studies: Das, Olfson, McCurtis, & Weissman, 2006; Howell et al., 2005; Lewis-Fernandez, Das, Alfonso, Weisman, & Olfson, 2005).

In this study, Howell, et al., (2012) offered that the rationale for generating a behavioral educational intervention was also rooted in previous research findings that “situational factors such as postpartum physical symptoms, overload from daily demands, and poor social support play a major role in the generation of depressive symptoms” (p. 942, cited studies: Howell et al., 2005; Howell, Mora, DiBonaventura, & Levanthal, 2009; Howell, Mora, & Levanthal, 2006).

 Methods: How Did They Do the Study?

  • Recruitment: 540 self-identified black and Latina mothers recruited to participate during their postpartum hospital stay at a “large tertiary inner-city hospital located in East Harlem in New York City” (p. 943). Inclusion criteria included participants who self-identified as black or Latina, 18 years or older, with neonates weighing 2,500g or higher, with 5-minute Apgar score of >7.
  • Randomization: Randomization of groups occurred through approved procedure of computerized randomization of participant number. Research coordinators were blinded to the assignment of the study arm of those who would receive the intervention and the control arm that received enhanced usual protocol.

 Intervention: What did they do?

For the group assigned to the intervention, the following 2 steps were taken:

Step 1:

“The in-hospital component of the intervention involved a 15-minute review of an educational pamphlet and partner summary sheet by the mother with a Masters-trained bilingual social worker” (Howell, et al., 2012, p. 943)

 What was in the pamphlet?

“The pamphlet represented each potential trigger of depressive symptoms as a “normal” aspect of the postpartum experience and provided specific suggestions for management. For example, the prevalence of moderate or heavy vaginal bleeding immediately postpartum was depicted by eight of 10 female silhouettes colored red; only one of 10 was red 3 months postdelivery. Simple “to do” statements (rest; use pads) were listed between the two rows of figures.  A separate page was dedicated to social support and ‘helpful organizations’ were listed” (Howell, et al., 2012, p. 943).

 What was the “partner summary sheet”?

The partner summary sheet spelled out the typical pattern of experience for mothers postpartum, i.e., it was designed to “normalize” the feelings and behaviors experienced and enacted by most mothers postpartum and stressed the importance of social support for the patient. The social worker reviewed the patient education pamphlet and partner summary sheet with the patient during her postpartum hospital stay and answered questions (Howell, et al., 2012, p. 943).

 Step 2:

A phone call 2 weeks post-delivery by a social worker was placed to each mother in the intervention group to assess symptoms, symptom management skills, and to review the “to-do” lists in the pamphlets.


 Results: What Did They Find?

The authors compared the group of mothers who did not receive the intervention to the intervention group and published the following results:

  • Positive depression screens were less common among the intervention group compared with the non-intervention group at 3 weeks (8.8% compared with 15.3%, P=.03), 3 months (8.4% compared with 13.24%, P=.09), and 6 months (8.9% compared with 13.7%, P=.11).
  • Analysis for up to 6 months follow-up demonstrated that:

“Mothers in the intervention group were less likely to screen positive for depression compared with enhanced usual care (odds ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.97)” (Howell, et al., 2012, p. 948).


Here the authors noted that implications were that behavioral education could address and modify risk factors that have been shown to correlate with postpartum depressive symptoms. Increasing mothers’ knowledge about triggers, and the “to-do” list of management of those triggers, followed by the phone contact with trained social worker provided an intervention that demonstrated significance in reduced postpartum symptomatology for this study.  Authors noted that implementing visual modalities in educational materials assisted mothers’ understanding of the triggers, and the range of “normal” symptoms that could be addressed with behavioral strategies, and re-examined in a timeframe of normalcy.


The authors noted that limitations included potential lack of generalizability, as the study took place in one site; they suggested future research in multiple settings would be indicated.

Food for Thought

How does the study inspire ways in which you might most effectively address postpartum symptoms, their triggers, and education with your clients? What are some ways you might use this information in your childbirth education classes?

And lastly, perhaps deeper still, can we truly engage this topic without discussing the role of racism plays in creating barriers to treatment, stigma, and lack of access to care for women of color? What are the steps childbirth and doula organizations can take toward addressing this issue? I would suggest position papers on perinatal mental health and racial disparities would be first line action items for organizations to implement publicly. Outreach to public health and mental health professionals from the organizational level, would further support birth professionals to gain the knowledge and tools needed to acknowledge and address these issues, and become active participants in substantive social change for the future of childbearing women. How many of our organizations are listed in educational pamphlets on postpartum depression as “helpful organizations”?

Walker Karraa, MFA, MA, CD(DONA)

Walker is currently the President of PATTCh, a not for profit founded by Penny Simkin and Phyllis Klaus–dedicated to the Prevention and Treatment of Traumatic Childbirth. Walker is a doctoral candidate at Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, a certified birth doula, writer, and maternal mental health advocate.  She holds an MA degree in Clinical Psychology from Antioch University Seattle, and a BA and MFA degree in dance from UCLA.  Walker is a contributor to the Lamaze sites, www.givingbirthwithconfidence.org and www.scienceandsensibility.org.  She lives in Sherman Oaks, California with her husband, and two children.


Das, A., Olfson, M., McCurtis, H., & Weissman, M. (2006). Depression in African Americans: Breaking barriers to detection and treatment. Journal of Family Practice, 55, 30-39.

Gaynes, B., Gavin, N., Meltzer-Brody, S., Swinson, T., Gartlehner, G., Brody, S., & Miller, W. (Ed.). (2005). Perinatal depression: Prevalence, screening accuracy, and screening outcomes (Summary, evidence report/technology assessment No. 119). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Howell, E. A., Balbierz, A., Wang, J., Parides, M., Zlotnick, C., & Leventhal, H. (2012). Reducing postpartum depressive symptoms among Black and Latina mothers: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 119(5), 942-949. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318250ba48

Howell, E. A., Mora, P. A., Horowitz, C. R., & Leventhal, H. (2005). Racial and ethnic differences in factors associated with early postpartum depressive symptoms. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 105, 1442-1450.

Howell, E., Mora, P., Chassin, M., & Levanthal, H. (2010). Lack of preparation, physical health after childbirth, and early postpartum depressive symptoms. Journal of Women’s Health (Larchmont), 19, 703-708.

Howell, E., Mora, P., DiBonaventura, M., & Levanthal, H. (2009). Modifiable factors associated with changes in postpartum depressive symptoms. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 12, 113-120.

Howell, E., Mora, P., & Levanthal, H. (2006). Correlates of early postpartum depressive symptoms. J Maternal Child Health, 10, 149-157.

Lewis-Fernandez, R., Das, A., Alfonso, C., Weisman, M., & Olfson, M. (2005). Depression in US Hispanics: Diagnostic and management considerations in family practice. Journal of American Board of Family Practice, 18, 282-296.

Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Sutton, P. D., Ventura, S. J., Menacker, F., & Kirmeyer, S. (2006). Births: final data for 2004. National Vital Statistical Report, 55, 1-101.

Zayas, L., Cunningham, M., McKee, M., & Jankowski, K. (2002). Depression and negative life events among pregnant African-American and Hispanic women. Women’s Health Issues, 12, 16-22.


Childbirth Education, Depression, Guest Posts, Maternal Mental Health, Perinatal Mood Disorders, Postpartum Depression, Walker Karraa , , , , , , ,

New Lamaze Campaign: Push For Your Baby! Childbirth Educators Play A Key Role

May 22nd, 2012 by avatar

Lamaze International has released a new campaign, “Push for Your Baby!” that demonstrates the key role that childbirth educators have in providing the tools for mother and families to ask for and receive the best care possible for their pregnancy, labor and birth.

Along with the “Push for Your Baby” campaign, Lamaze International reveals two new websites, Lamaze International for Parents geared for parents and consumers seeking information about classes, best practices and resources to help them connect with a Lamaze Certified Childbirth Educator and have the best birth possible and Lamaze International for the childbirth professional, where you can find professional development opportunities, forums for peer connection, resources for working with families to help them have the safest and healthiest births possible and information on becoming a Lamaze Certified Childbirth Educator.

“With the right information and education, women have the opportunity to be active partners in their care during pregnancy and birth, not just recipients of that care,” said and Lamaze Childbirth Educator Program for the Duke AHEC Program. “This campaign is designed to help women be ‘savvy shoppers’ and prepared to seek out the best care for their babies and themselves.”Lamaze President-elect Tara Owens Shuler, MEd, CD(DONA), LCCE, FACCE, Director of Continuing Education, Special Projects

The key components of the “Push for Your Baby” campaign include;

  • Push for Better!

Women often do not know what questions to ask or how to find out if the recommendations and suggestions provided by care providers are in line with research about what is best for mothers and babies. Childbirth educators play a significant role in preparing parents to have the conversations that matter, when the parents have learned and understand what the current research says about healthy birth practices from attending your classes.

  • Spot the Best Care

Parents often receive an overabundance of information during the childbearing year on the topics of pregnancy, labor, birth, breastfeeding and newborn/infant care. Much of this information, though potentially well meaning, might not be totally accurate. Lamaze provides an easy way for parents to understand the practices that offer the safest care and explains their options and avoid unnecessary interventions. Directing your families to the Six Lamaze Healthy Birth Practices, complete with short videos and downloadable pdfs of research and resources helps simplify the information overload and provides accurate resources to help parents understand how to have the healthiest and safest birth possible.

  • Childbirth Challenges
As labor unfolds, being flexible and adapting to changing circumstances is an absolute necessity for women and their partners. Working in partnership with their care providers to understand interventions and the alternatives that might be available can help families to avoid unintended consequences. Your role as a childbirth educator is critical to giving mothers and partners the tools to face these challenges if they should arise during their labor and birth.

  • Questions to Ask Your Physician or Midwife

10 Questions to Ask When Selecting A Care Provider can help families to identify doctors and midwives who are a good fit for them and who practice in a way that feels good to the mother. Using these well thought out questions can help families decide who is the right person to help them welcome their baby in the safest and healthiest way possible. Women may not do the up front “leg work” to find a provider who shares their vision of pregnancy and birth, but these questions provide a great guide. Using these questions as resources in an early pregnancy class can help your students find the right fit for their pregnancy and birth.

Questions to Ask During Labor and Birth will help mothers and their partners to ask the important questions when faced with decisions during their labor and birth. The unpredictability of certain birth situations will require parents to gather information. These simple questions will help them to organize their thoughts and advocate for their birth and their baby. Taking time to collect this information will allow mothers to feel confident in the decisions they make as they work to birth their baby in the safest and healthiest manner possible.

Childbirth education can help you to push for the best care! In a poignant, and extremely effective eight minute video, meet seven women and hear more about their births, the challenges they faced, their experiences in seeking care that felt good to them and the choices they made. Hear how these women feel about their birth experience. The celebrations and the forks in the road. These stories are a wonderful cross section of the types of experiences that women in our classes may receive, all across the country and around the world. The message in the video is loud and clear that childbirth education helps women to be better positioned to ask the right questions, seek appropriate care and be more prepared to face the challenges that may arise during their labor and birth.

Take a look at this video, and think about how you can share these women’s stories with the women and families that you work with. What discussions can grow from the stories in the video?  How are you going to use this learning tool to help prepare the families that you work with to “Push for Your Baby” and receive the care they and their babies deserve? Share your ideas with us here in our comments section and let us know what YOU plan to do?

Lamaze educators around the world are the cornerstone of  good childbirth education preparation for today’s parents. The “Push for Your Baby” campaign recognizes the information that parents learn in your classes helps them to be better prepared, play an active role in advocating for themselves and their babies and asking for care that is backed by research and proven to be safest and healthest for mom and baby.

What you can you do today?

Explore both the Lamaze for Parents and Lamaze International for educators websites and see what is new and exciting

Watch and share the “Push for Your Baby- Parents Share Their Stories” video with your online community

Place the new “Push for Your Baby” Logo, Banner and Button on your blog or website to let the world know you support safe and healthy birth practices

Visit the Lamaze Science & Sensibility Facebook Page and share the “I Help Parents Push for the Best Care” picture to spread the word in your social community about this exciting new campaign and your role in helping parents to “Push for Your Baby.”

Watch the Science & Sensibility blog over the next days and weeks as we explore together all the rich resources available to you as educators on the new and improved websites.


Babies, Childbirth Education, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Lamaze News, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, News about Pregnancy, Patient Advocacy, Practice Guidelines, Push for Your Baby, Research for Advocacy, Social Media, Transforming Maternity Care, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

Coming May 22nd, Lamaze International’s New Campaign; “Push For Your Baby”

May 18th, 2012 by avatar

Did you know that Lamaze is launching a new campaign called “Push for Your Baby”? It’s an effort to encourage women to speak up and push for better care for themselves and their babies, and to spotlight the role that childbirth education has in equipping women with the information they need to be active partners in their care. Keep an eye out for additional details on Tuesday, May 22nd.   The “Push For Your Baby” campaign is chock full of resources to help families achieve a safe and healthy birth.  Look for more info on Science & Sensibility on May 22nd to learn how Lamaze continues to be the leader in promoting safe and healthy birth for women and babies.







Lamaze News, Maternity Care , , , , ,

cheap oakleys fake oakleys cheap jerseys cheap nfl jerseys wholesale jerseys wholesale nfl jerseys