Science & Sensibility

Childbirth Connection’s Listening to Mothers Initiative just released the Listening to Mothers III (LTMIII) results late last week.  For the third time in the past 11 years, this organization has gone out and queried women on a variety of topics related to pregnancy, birth, postpartum and breastfeeding.  They have questioned thousands of women to accurately assess how the actual experiences hold up against what we know to be best practice and evidence based maternity care. I have relied on the past two survey results frequently during my professional career in maternal health and am thrilled to have the new survey results now available.

I thought it would be interesting to run some of the LTMIII results through the filter of Lamaze International’s Healthy Birth Practices.  The Healthy Birth Practices were most recently updated by Lamaze in 2009, and consist of six simple, evidence based practices that greatly contribute to keeping birth safe and healthy for mothers and babies. Each easy to remember practice has its own short video that parents can watch that talks about that specific care practice and safe alternatives.  Additionally, each Healthy Birth Practice has an accompanying Practice Paper with all the citations for the peer-reviewed, gold standard research that supports that particular practice.

Some useful links and information upfront

Listening to Mothers I

Listening to Mothers II

New!  Listening to Mothers III

Survey Questionnaire 

Major Study Findings

Interesting facts before we get started

While the LTMIII survey only looked at 2400 women,  please be aware that one percentage point change in results would represent approximately 40,000 mother/baby pairs, based on a US birth rate of around 4 million births a year.

35% of women had not intended to be pregnant at the time of this pregnancy, including 5% who stated that they had never intended to become pregnant at all.

52% of those planning to get pregnant did have a preconception meeting with a health care provider, (which could be viewed as a wonderful time to determine if this health care provider might be a good match for their maternity care needs.)

85% of women based their maternity care provider on insurance requirements or restrictions.

78% of women worked with an obstetrician (this has dropped over the course of the three studies.)

9% of women worked with a family practice doctor

8% of women worked with a midwife who practiced in a hospital, as one of the requirements of the study was that the mother was having a hospital birth.

The average length of time spent actually in a prenatal appointment, with health care provider or their nurse was 32 minutes.  (OB: 31 min, Family Practice/MW 35 min.) I was pleasantly surprised that it was this long, I expected less.

Over the course of the three studies, the cesarean rate of study participants went up, (24% to 31%), the VBAC rate went down and labor augmentation was cut in half from 53% to 26%.  More women used nitrous oxide for pain relief during their labor in the most recent study (6%, up from 2% in the first study)

30% of the women chose not to ask a question that they wanted answered at least once during their prenatal appointments.

Overall, women were unable to make choices in line with the Healthy Birth Practices, and did not know that deviating from these practices was not evidence based and resulted in increased interventions.

Let’s see how things stack up

Healthy Birth Practice 1: Let Labor Begin on Its Own

Research shows that in the absence of medical issues, mothers, babies and labors do best when labor starts spontaneously on its own. The final few weeks of pregnancy are vital for the putting the “finishing touches” on baby and helping to make the transition to life on the outside as smooth as possible.

41% of all women surveyed attempted a medical (involved a care provider) induction and of those induced, 74% were successful, (the woman went into labor) for an overall medically induced labor rate of 31%

Reasons why women were induced

• 44% were full term
• 19% wanted to get the pregnancy over
• 11% wanted to control the timing of birth
• 16% were induced for a large baby (note: the average weight of these babies induced for suspected macrosomia was 7 lbs 15 ounces.)
• 18% were induced for being “overdue” (note: the average gestational age of those babies induced for being overdue was 39.9 weeks)
• 18% were induced for a maternal health problem

Interestingly, 26% of women had their due date changed toward the end of their pregnancy; 66% of those were given an earlier due date and 34% were given a later one.

68% of women had a late third trimester ultrasound to estimate fetal weight

Healthy Birth Practice 2: Walk, Move Around and Change Positions in Labor

Women with the ability to move and change positions are able to use this movement to help cope with the pain of labor.  Access to water in the form of a shower or tub can be a valuable coping technique.  Having access to intermittent fetal monitoring or telemetry movements can facilitate movement and promote labor progress for many women.

Only 43% of women walked around after being admitted to the hospital in labor

40% of women used position changes and movement for non-pharmacological pain relief

Healthy Birth Practice 3: Bring a Loved One, Friend or Doula for Continuous Support

Many women will thrive in labor if surrounded by a caring, supportive birth team.  Adding a skilled birth doula to the team has been shown in many studies to improve the outcome of birth and reduce interventions and cesareans.  While more and more birthing women are aware of a doula, many are still not having one in attendance at their birth.

99% of mothers had at least one support person present, (most often this was a partner, then a family member or friend)

6% women used a doula

75% of mothers were aware of what a doula does and of those 75% who knew, 27% would have liked a doula supporting them at their birth.

Healthy Birth Practice 4: Avoid Interventions That are Not Medically Necessary 

Although research shows that routine and unnecessary interference in the natural process of labor and birth is not likely to be beneficial—and may indeed be harmful—most U.S. births today are intervention-intensive.

98% of the women had at least one ultrasound during pregnancy and 70% had three or more over the course of their pregnancy

68% of women had a late third trimester ultrasound to estimate fetal weight.

83% of women had some type of pain medication

67% had an epidural or spinal, and 92% of those who did reported this to be “very helpful” or “somewhat helpful.”

62% of women surveyed had an IV during labor

51% of women had one or more vaginal exams in labor. (I was surprised at this, I would have suspected higher)

47% had bladder (Foley) catheters

31% of women had a labor augmented with pitocin

50% of birthing women had their labor either induced or augmented with pitocin

20% had their membranes ruptured artificially (AROM)  after labor began

36% of women had their labor started or augmented by AROM

1% of women requested and had a maternal request cesarean for non-medical reasons

40% of women drank fluids during their labor

21% of the women ate during labor

85% of women birthing vaginally did so without forceps or vacuum

87% of women responding had at least one of the five big interventions (attempted labor induction, epidural, pitocin augmentation, assisted delivery with vacuum or forceps or cesarean.

60% of the women had at least two of the above five interventions listed above

Healthy Birth Practice 5: Avoid Giving Birth on Your Back and Follow Your Body’s Urges to Push

Women push most effectively when permitted to push in the positions that feel best for them.  Allowing the baby to “labor down” even after reaching full dilation until moms feel the urge to push can help women to push a baby out quicker and under their own steam.  Pushing in positions that allow the pelvis to open as much as possible and making space by getting the sacrum out of the way can help promote descent during pushing.

68% of women surveyed birthed on their backs

23% birthed in a semi-sitting position

8% gave birth in a position off their back, either side-lying, squat or hands & knees

Healthy Birth Practice 6: Keep Mother and Baby Together; Its Best for Mother, Baby and Breastfeeding

Experts now recommend that right after birth, a healthy newborn should be placed skin-to-skin on the mother’s abdomen or chest and should be dried and covered with warm blankets. Any care that needs to be done immediately after birth can be done with your baby skin-to-skin on your chest.  This early time together promotes breastfeeding, helps stabilize the newborn’s temperature and blood sugar and also offers a unique chance for high levels of natural oxytocin that promote bonding and help with immediate postpartum bleeding.

47% of mothers responding had their baby in their arms within the first hour

40% of mother-baby pairs were not skin to skin when they were first held

33% of all babies were with hospital staff the first hour

60% of mother-baby pairs roomed in together

18% of babies spent time in the NICU

25% of babies spent their days with mom and their nights in the nursery

49% of mothers who stated that they intended to exclusively breastfeed were given formula samples or offers.

29% of newborns were supplemented with water or formula during the hospital stay

Summary

After reading through the LTMIII report, I found myself discouraged by the current results.  It was clear that women were making choices and/or being informed by their care providers to choose practices that have long been known to create a cascade of interventions, do not improve outcomes for mothers or babies and are not evidence based.  For the majority of the women who responded to this survey, the Healthy Care Practices are still a pipe dream and not a reality in their hospitals and with their current providers.  I know change comes slowly, and it can take years for protocols to catch up with the evidence but frankly, after reading the summary of how things did or did not change over the course of the three studies I was still shocked.

Have you had a chance to go through the study yet?  What were your thoughts?  Anything surprise you?  Can you share a bright point that you noticed?

Join us later this week as I examine what the LTMIII survey had to say about childbirth education and how women are receiving pregnancy and birth information and from where.

 

 

 

 

Sharon Muza Breastfeeding, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Doula Care, Epidural Analgesia, Evidence Based Medicine, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Lamaze International, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, Midwifery, New Research, Newborns, News about Pregnancy, Research, Transforming Maternity Care, Uncategorized Childbirth Connection, Healthy Birth Practices, Lamaze International, Listening to Mothers III, Listening to Mothers surveys, research, Sharon Muza

Childbirth Connection has just released the Listening to Mothers III study today, and will holding a press conference shortly to share the results.  I plan to listen in and read the study thoroughly to see what the mothers have to say!  Look for a complete post early next week evaluating the current state of pregnancy care, labor, birth postpartum and breastfeeding and how it stacks up to Lamaze International’s Six Healthy Birth Practices.  In the meantime, consider joining the press conference, or reading this new study.  You can also check out the previous two LTM studies to see if things have changed.

Listening to Mothers I

Listening to Mothers II

New!  Listening to Mothers III

Sharon Muza Babies, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Depression, Healthcare Reform, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, informed Consent, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Medical Interventions, New Research, Research Childbirth Connection, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, lamaze, Listening to Mothers, research, Sharon Muza

In recognition of Cesarean Awareness Month, I want to share an interview with Christa Billings, the president of International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN).  For over 30 years, ICAN has had an international presence and through peer to peer support and many volunteer hours, has worked tirelessly to prevent unneeded cesareans, help women recover emotionally from a cesarean and advocated for VBAC as a safe and appropriate choice for many women when they plan their future births.

I have been the chapter co-leader of ICAN Seattle for several years, and have been honored to walk alongside the women who make up our chapter as they have discovered their own strength and power and learned how to seek information and evaluate evidence and research.  There are many chapter leaders just like myself, working hard in our own communities, to help women both before and after a cesarean birth. ICAN has partnered with many other maternal health organizations and maternity leaders to help improve the state of maternity care for many women.  Learn more about this organization and be sure to share this organization (and its resources) with your students, clients and patients.

Sharon Muza: Can you tell me a bit about the history of ICAN?

Christa Billings: The International Cesarean Awareness Network, Inc. (ICAN) is a nonprofit organization that was founded by Esther Booth Zorn and many other motivated women in 1982. ICAN originated as “Cesarean Prevention Movement,” later changing its name to ICAN in 1992 to reflect a more positive statement. ICAN has now grown to over 180 chapters throughout the United States and worldwide over the past 30 years. ICAN’s mission is to improve maternal-child health by preventing unnecessary cesareans through education, providing support for cesarean recovery, and promoting Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC).

SM: How many chapters does ICAN have nationally and internationally?

CB: ICAN has 181 chapters, 145 in the USA, and another 36 internationally.   

Mission Statement of International Cesarean Awareness Network The International Cesarean Awareness Network, Inc. (ICAN) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to improve maternal-child health by preventing unnecessary cesareans through education, providing support for cesarean recovery, and promoting Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC).

SM: What does an ICAN meeting look like?

CB: A typical ICAN meeting entails women coming together with women of similar experiences for peer to peer support. Meetings are sometimes topic specific and sometimes general support. Often birth stories are shared. There is often laughter, tears and a feeling of camaraderie. The feel of a particular meeting can change based on who is there and what it being discussed. I like to remind newcomers that they should always try a second meeting as they are all different. Sometimes meetings can be VBAC heavy and other times they can be cesarean recovery heavy. It really depends on who shows up to the meeting and who is driving the discussion.

SM: Who is welcome? Mothers? Partners? Birth Professionals? Providers?

CB: Some meetings are open for women/lap babies only and other meetings welcome children, dads, husbands, partners, birth professionals and other community members who want to learn about cesareans, VBAC and recovery. Each chapter may vary on how they do things, so check in with the chapter leader if you have any questions.

SM: What are some things that ICAN does that reinforces it’s mission statement?

CB: We offer support to mothers through listening. We also help in educating them by providing evidence based research to help them make the best possible birth choices for them or to cope/understand what they have experienced. We recognize that both VBAC and cesareans carry risks. We help women understand what those risks are with both choices, where typically many providers only provide the VBAC risks.

SM: I know that ICAN periodically holds conferences; can you tell me about them? Are there continuing ed hours available from them?

CB: The ICAN conferences are a time to spend quality face to face, talking with women who support VBAC and are interested in reducing the cesarean rate. This conference isn’t just for VBAC and cesarean mothers; it’s for anyone who supports birth. There are many great speakers and public discussion on various birth topics.  We do offer continuing education hours.

SM: How did you get involved in ICAN yourself? How did you find yourself in the president’s position?

CB: I found ICAN five years ago when I first stepped foot into an ICAN meeting during Cesarean Awareness Month. I was just a mom looking for support as I planned a VBAC. I quickly found great support. My second birth ultimately ended in another cesarean, even though I attempted a VBAC. If I couldn’t have a vaginal birth I wanted to make sure others had the support and education to ensure the best advantage in planning for their births. I wanted to give back to the organization that helped shape my birth journey. I decided to join my local ICAN chapter’s board & accepted a position as the Northwest Regional Coordinator. Later in 2010, I went on to VBAC my 3rd daughter at home after 2 cesareans. After attending the 2011 ICAN conference I really felt pulled to do more. The conference was very inspiring and it touched me deeply.  It was a thrill to meet all the women I had been communicating with over the years. These mothers were no longer just a name in an email. Putting names & faces to it gave the journey to VBAC a whole new meaning to my life. In 2012 I joined the Board of Directors as Chapter Director. As we reshaped the board be a bit smaller and focused, I moved into the role of Vice President. The previous President stepped down and in October 2012 and I became the new President of ICAN. I never envisioned my life taking this path, but here I am and I’m proud to be the voice of the mothers for an organization so dear to my heart. ICAN has forever changed my life.

SM: What challenges do we face in lowering the cesarean rate? Do you think the tide has turned?

CB: While research has consistently shown that VBAC is a reasonably safe choice for women with a prior cesarean, there is an alarming disconnect between what evidence based research shows is good for women and babies, and the way that hospitals and providers practice. Mothers need to start demanding research based care. The challenges we still face are getting care providers to work with us to improve birth outcomes by providing evidence based care and to stop practicing by provider preference, convenience, legal liability concerns and to perform cesareans only when the research clearly indicates it is needed.

I would like to think that the tide is starting to turn, but I am not ready to say it’s turned quite yet. Mothers are joining together to recognize they have a voice and choices in their maternity care and are starting to demand evidence based care. The recent statements from ACOG give us a little hope that people are opening up their eyes to see how out of control the cesarean rates are in many places.

SM: Are you optimistic with recent statements from ACOG about who should VBAC and how to handle maternal request cesareans?

CB: I’m not sure optimistic is the right word, I would say hopeful. I think it is great that ACOG is finally acknowledging that primary cesareans will affect future births and that in the absence of maternal or fetal indications for cesarean delivery, a plan for vaginal delivery is safe and appropriate and should be recommended to patients. These births are a very small percentage of the births, as often primary cesareans are not being performed based on maternal request, but rather being performed by provider preference, convenience, legal liability concerns and many other reasons. I will be optimistic when providers and hospital administration acknowledge that birth is a human right, that the consumer has the right to decide whether they accept the choices presented to her and start providing true informed consent and stop using scare tactics to influence women’s decisions. 

SM: What do you want childbirth educators to know and share with students about ICAN and cesarean awareness?

CB: That ICAN is a non-profit advocacy and support group whose mission is to improve maternal and child health by preventing unnecessary cesareans through education, providing support for cesarean recovery, and promoting vaginal birth. We offer support and information to thousands of women through our main office, local chapters, website, forums, email support groups and various social networks. We provide evidence-based information, using research that is accessible for women and their care providers.  It’s important that women understand the effects a primary cesarean can have on them and on all future births.  It would be great if childbirth educators included ICAN as a resource for the families in their classes who may end up with a cesarean.

SM:What do you want health care providers to know?

CB: We are a support network for women healing from past birth experiences and for those preparing for future births. Our vision is to reduce the cesarean rate driven by women making evidence-based and risk appropriate childbirth decisions. We are not anti-cesarean. ICAN recognizes that when a cesarean is medically necessary, it can be a lifesaving technique for both mother and baby, and worth the risks involved. While VBAC does carry risks associated with the possibility of uterine rupture, cesarean surgery carries life-threatening risks as well. The choice between VBAC and elective repeat cesareans isn’t between risk versus no risk. It’s a choice between which set of risks you want to take on. We are here to help educate mothers on all risks to help them make the best choices for their birth.

SM: If someone was interested in adding a chapter, what would the first step?

CB: If someone wanted to start a chapter in their city or town, they would need to contact the regional coordinator for their area. Their regional coordinator will walk them through the steps & requirements to open a chapter.

SM: What can people do if they want to volunteer in other ways besides being a chapter?

CB: They can contact our volunteer coordinator for more information on how they can help. Please let our volunteer coordinator know what your special skills are that you have to offer and she will match you up with the right position suited to your skills. We have many positions or tasks within ICAN that are not chapter specific. As an all volunteer organization. we are always looking for help.

SM: I want to thank you, Christa for all the information you have provided and for your time in doing this interview.  I hope that more people will share the resources that ICAN offers with the birthing families that are affected by cesarean birth.

 

 

Sharon Muza ACOG, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, informed Consent, Maternity Care, Patient Advocacy Cesarean Awareness Month, Childbirth Education, Christa Billings, Evidence Based Medicine, ICAN, International Cesarean Awareness Network, Sharon Muza

April is Cesarean Awareness Month (CAM) and that presents a wonderful opportunity to share resources for cesarean prevention and recovery as well as Vaginal Birth after Cesarean (VBAC) support.

I am a co-leader of the Seattle chapter of the International Cesarean Awareness Network (ICAN) and teach classes in Seattle on both VBAC and Cesarean birth. (I call them VBAC YOUR Way and Cesarean YOUR Way)  I thought I might share my favorite resources on this topic and ask you to share with readers what you prefer to share with your students, patients and clients on this topic.

ACOG Committee Opinion on Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request

ACOG Practice Bulletin on Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery

Birthing Beautiful Ideas; VBAC Scare Tactics – Kristen Oganowski has a great series on scare tactics that women hoping to VBAC might face.  Good balance of heart and science.

Birthing Normally after A Cesarean or Two – Science & Sensibility three part interview with author and childbirth researcher Hélène Vadeboncoeur, done by Kimmelin Hull, former Science & Sensibility Community Manager

Cesareanrates.com - organized by Jill Arnold (of The Unnecessarean), provides a comprehensive breakdown of cesarean rates by state and hospital for the USA.

Childbirth Connection – Vaginal Birth or Repeat C Section: What You Need to Know

Evidence Based Birth – Rebecca Dekker is a Science & Sensibility contributor and writes a great fact based blog.  She frequently writes on the topic of cesareans.

Giving Birth With Confidence’s A Woman’s Guide to VBAC: Navigating the NIH VBAC Recommendations - Lamaze International’s parent blog hosts this wonderful resource written by Amy Romano and Kristen Oganowski

International Cesarean Awareness Network – international organization that works to prevent unneeded cesareans, promote cesarean recover and help women striving for a VBAC. Offers both online support as well as local chapter meetings.

A Natural Cesarean – A Woman Centered Technique. This video demonstrates and discusses ways that health care providers can make the cesarean more mother-baby centric, offering techniques that provide a great degree of satisfaction to the birthing woman.

NIH VBAC Consensus Statement – In 2010,  the National Institute of Health, a US government agency convened experts on VBAC and Cesareans and took testimony and heard discussions about best practice.  They summarized the results of this groundbreaking forum in this document.

The Truth about Cesareans – by Eugene Declercq.  Short 6 minute video on why the cesarean rate might be so high.

 

VBACFacts.com – A blog run by Jen Kamel, this website is a wealth of information and analysis on current studies and data as it relates to cesareans and VBAC birth.  Jen also runs a fabulous VBAC webinar that is available online.

The Well-Rounded Mama – blog run by occasional Science & Sensibility contributor Pamela Vireday, provides frequent information on VBACs, cesareans and large sized women, but the insight is valuable for all.

I am also aware of a free webinar, for birth professionals and providers as well as parents, “Family Centered Cesarean Birth” that you may want to consider signing up for.  Click here for more information. The webinar is presented live on Thursday, April 11th and then available after the presentation to watch as a recording.

What are your favorite go to resources to share with expectant parents?  Do you have a particular film clip that you like to show?  A book recommendation?  Do you have an effective method of presenting information on Cesareans and VBACs in your classes and with your clients and patients.  Let’s have a discussion in the comments section.  I welcome your thoughts.

 

 

Sharon Muza ACOG, Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) CAM, Cesarean Awareness Month, cesareans, Childbirth Connection, Childbirth Education, Giving Birth With Confidence, ICAN, VBAC

by Christine H. Morton, PhD and Monica Basile, PhD, CPM, CD(DONA), CCE (BWI)

Last month there were great discussions after a study was published by the University of Minnesota, examining the potential cost savings to Medicaid if doulas worked with Medicaid clients, helping to reduce interventions and cesareans.  Today and next Tuesday, regular contributor, Christine Morton and her colleague Monica Basile, take a look at that study and another from Oregon, and share thoughtful insight about topics that might still need to be addressed if costs savings were to be effectively realized in a two part blog post. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility

____________________________

 

How can doula supported births help reduce the cesarean rate and realize cost savings within Medicaid-funded births? Two studies published last month offer the opportunity to address this complex question.

We support the goal of increasing access to doula supported care to childbearing people of diverse racial/ethnic and class backgrounds, and we are pleased that discussions are taking place about how doulas may be able to help reduce racial disparities in maternal and infant health. We recognize that work toward these goals requires policy advocacy, which depends heavily on economic arguments for the benefits of doula care.

However, by limiting the discussion of benefits to the economic impacts of reduced cesareans, advocacy for Medicaid funding of doula supported births—without specifying the doula model of care and without according true value to the doula’s impact—may have unintended consequences for individual doulas, and the organizations that represent them.  One such consequence may be that the resulting system will continue to perpetuate a model of economic marginality and potential exploitation for the doulas who serve a low income population of childbearing people.

The AJPH study by Katy Kozhimannil and colleagues in Minnesota received a lot of media attention when it appeared last month, even live coverage in the Huffington Post.  This study compared 1,079 selected Medicaid doula patients in Minnesota to Medicaid patients nationwide for their total cesarean rates.  They found that doula clients of a community program in Minnesota had a rate of 22.3% while national Medicaid had 31.5%.  The authors reported three scenarios, all assuming that if states reduced cesarean rates, by offering doula services, there would be varying levels of cost savings, depending on the cesarean rate achieved, and by reimbursing doulas between $100-300 per birth.

In our view, the Minnesota study design raises several methodological questions, which are applicable to this study and to future research on doula-attended births. We outline those questions here, as well as raise several more substantive concerns about the implications of the study’s stated conclusions.

1. Why did the researchers not compare Minnesota Medicaid doula clients to Minnesota Medicaid women who gave birth?  Minnesota has a much lower rate of total cesarean that the US as a whole (27.4% during this time period), and this would have been a better matched comparison.  A better comparison would be doula attended births vs. non-doula attended births at the same facility.  It is not clear from the study whether the doula program whose data was utilized served women at one or multiple hospitals in Minneapolis. 
2. Why did the researchers not limit their investigation to primary cesareans?  Doulas typically support women in labor rather than women undergoing repeat cesareans.  The total cesarean rate includes repeat cesarean so it will be much higher than the primary cesarean rate, which is more applicable to doula clients.  Including total cesarean rates means that the researchers are comparing a limited universe (doula support of women in labor) to all births (thus including repeat and primary cesarean).   The data source for this study, (Nationwide Inpatient Sample), however, does not have this information.
3. Cesarean rates are very dependent on the parity distribution of the birthing population, so first time mothers need to be compared to first time mothers and multiparous women to multiparous women. This information is not available in the data source used by the researchers, but in future studies of this type, it is critical to verify that the proportion of each is the same in the intervention and control populations.
4. States are implementing a number of payment reform models to reduce cesareans among women covered by Medicaid, with limited success.  In part, that is because cesareans are influenced by a number of factors, with payment incentives only one.  (Many of these issues are covered in the CMQCC white paper on improvement opportunities to reduce cesareans, which argues that a multi-pronged strategy is necessary). 
5. Because hospital rates of cesarean have been shown to have high geographic variation in a number of studies (Baicker 2006; Main et al 2011; Caceres 2013; Kozhimannil 2013), it may be more feasible to have comparison groups of hospitals with similar primary cesarean rates.  Until we understand what accounts for variation in cesarean rates between institutions (unit culture; facility policies and protocols), it may be premature to assess the independent effect of labor support by a trained doula.

While doula support is associated with fewer cesareans across the board (Hodnett 2012), the methodological issues described above are likely to over estimate the benefits of doula-attended births in terms of reducing the cesarean rate for Medicaid covered births.  This, in turn, raises questions about the purported cost savings.  In the Minnesota study, the cost breakpoint is no more than $300 dollars for the doula per birth.  In most cities, doulas charge well above this amount for fee-for service care.

A cost-benefit analysis by Oregon Health & Science University researchers for the Oregon State Legislature was presented at the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine in February 2013, which found that doula care in labor provides a cost benefit to payers only when doula costs are below $159.73 per case.  In that study, data sources are not entirely clear, but do seem to come from the OHSU facility where a hospital-based doula program is in place.  In that program, doulas are on call on weekends only and come to assist in a labor when requested by the woman during her prenatal care or when she arrives at the hospital.  A case-control study claiming the benefits of this doula model at OHSU was published as an abstract, and although it claims “women receiving doula care were statistically less likely to have an epidural during labor (p = 0.03), have an episiotomy (p = .03), or cesarean delivery (p = .006) and on average, doula attended women had a shorter hospital stay compared to the control group (p = .002),” nowhere does it show what the actual rates were.  This is important, because, they are likely to be relatively low overall, given that OSHU is a teaching hospital, with midwives and family practice physicians providing maternity care.

There are several types of doula models; not all have the same components.  The community-based doula model, as exemplified by the HealthConnectOne approach has a solid evidence base. This model employs doulas who are trusted community members, and provides extensive prenatal and postpartum support in addition to continuous labor support.  Doulas work collaboratively with community organizations, have extensive training in experiential learning and cultural sensitivity, and are paid a wage commensurate with their value and expertise, serving an important workforce development and grassroots empowerment function. Some so-called community doula programs do not incorporate all these components.

Hospital-based programs usually assign or utilize an on-call doula, who has not met the mother in advance and is not likely to follow up postpartum.  Some advocates of Medicaid doula programs utilize the community health worker (CHW) model, which seems to mirror the community-based doula (CBD) model but with important differences.  The American Public Health Association has defined CHWs as “frontline public health workers who are trusted members of and/or have an unusually close understanding of the community they serve.”  Yet, despite their widespread utilization in public health over the past several years, the conditions of their training, job opportunities, and even job description are idiosyncratic, and highly varied, and this “lack of CHW identity and standards of practice has led employers to contribute to the confusion about who CHWs are and what they do.” While the CHW and CBD models offer important job opportunities to members of under-resourced communities, their wages are often on the low side, with full time work paying $35,000 to $42,000 annually.  According to a health careers website, “CHWs often are hired to support a specific health initiative, which may depend on short-term funding sources. As a result, CHWs may have to move from job to job to obtain steady income.  This short-term categorical funding of health services is a challenge to the stability and sustainability of the CHW practice.”

In cost-benefit or cost effectiveness studies, it is critical to clearly specify the doula model of care on which the economic model is based.  It seems the doula model in the Minnesota study incorporates extensive pre and post partum contact and that there is an attempt to match doulas and clients in terms of race/ethnicity and language, but this is not always possible.   The study does not indicate what the doulas in the Minnesota program were paid, however, and that information was unavailable on their website.

Before we move to the topic of reimbursement, we want to note that the type of doula model is critical for assessing the benefits of doula-attended births.  The research clearly shows different outcomes for doulas who are affiliated with hospitals compared to those who work independently (Hodnett, 2012).  If a cost benefit model shows little gain in terms of outcomes, or yields a price point in the low hundreds of dollars, it may be that findings are affected by the assumptions embedded in the calculations.

More fundamentally, however, we argue that doula benefits cannot be captured solely through an economic model.  Neither should doulas be promoted as a primary means to reduce cesarean rates.  Both strategies (economic benefits and cesarean reduction) for promoting doulas have significant barrier.  In part two of this topic, running on Tuesday, April 2nd,  we discuss our concerns about reimbursement and program sustainability alongside a caution against relying too heavily on arguments that position the doula as primarily a money saver and cesarean reducer.

References

Baicker, K, Kasey S. Buckles, and Amitabh Chandra. Geographic Variation In The Appropriate Use Of Cesarean Delivery: Do higher usage rates reflect medically inappropriate use of this procedure? Health Affairs 25 (2006): w355–w367; doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.25.w355

Caceres, Isabel A., Mariana Arcaya, et al., Hospital Differences in Cesarean Deliveries in Massachusetts (US) 2004–2006: The Case against Case-Mix Artifact, PLoS ONE 8(3): e57817. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057817

Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD003766. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub4.

Kozhimannil, Katy Backes, Michael R. Law, and Beth A. Virnig. Cesarean Delivery Rates Vary Tenfold Among US Hospitals; Reducing Variation May Address Quality And Cost Issues, Health Affairs 32, NO. 3 (2013): 527–535; doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1030

Main EK, Morton CH, Hopkins D, Giuliani G, Melsop K and Gould JB. 2011.  Cesarean Deliveries, Outcomes, and Opportunities for Change in California: Toward a Public Agenda for Maternity Care Safety and Quality.  Palo Alto, CA: CMQCC.  (Available at http://www.cmqcc.org/white_paper)

About the authors

 

Monica Basile has been an active birth doula, childbirth educator, and midwifery advocate for 17 years, and holds a PhD in Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies. Her 2012 doctoral dissertation, Reproductive Justice and Childbirth Reform: Doulas as Agents of Social Change, is an examination of emerging trends in doula care through the lens of intersectional feminist theory and the reproductive justice movement.

 

Regular contributor Christine H. Morton, PhD, is a sociologist whose research on doulas is the topic of her forthcoming book, with Elayne Clift, Birth Ambassadors: Doulas and the Re-emergence of Woman-Supported Birth, which will be published by Praeclarus Press in Fall 2013. For more on Christine, please see Science & Sensibility’s Contributor page.

Christine Morton Cesarean Birth, Doula Care, Guest Posts, Healthy Birth Practices, Healthy Care Practices, Maternity Care, Research, Uncategorized cesareans, Christine Morton PhD, doulas, Medicaid and maternity care, Monica Basile, research