24h-payday

Archive

Archive for the ‘Research’ Category

Book Review – Transformed by Postpartum Depression: Women’s Stories of Trauma and Growth, Part One

March 10th, 2015 by avatar

 By Cynthia Good Mojab, MS, LMHCA, IBCLC, RLC, CATSM

transformed cover

Walker Karraa, PhD, a former contributor to Science & Sensibility, has authored a new book, Transformed by Postpartum Depression: Women’s Stories of Trauma and Growth, that speaks to what lies on the other side for the 20 women she interviewed about their experiences with postpartum depression. Cynthia Good Mojab, MS, LMHCA, IBCLC, RLC, CATSM, who specializes in supporting people with postpartum mood and anxiety disorders and birth trauma presents a three-part series related to Dr. Karraa’s book. Today on the blog, Cynthia outlines the books content and its implications for practice. On Thursday, Cynthia shares her commentary on some of Dr. Karraa’s research and conclusions. Next week we are offered a glimpse into the person behind the book, when an interview with Dr. Karraa is shared with blog readers. Follow all three parts of this series on “Transformed by Postpartum Depression.” – Sharon Muza, Science & Sensibility Community Manager.

 In the last several decades, our awareness and understanding of postpartum depression have steadily increased. A wealth of research now exists regarding its prevalence, risk factors, prevention, symptoms, consequences, and treatment. Organizations, like Postpartum Support International and Postpartum Progress, champion the needs of families touched by postpartum depression and other perinatal mental health challenges, counter stigma, and contribute critical support and information to the safety net that all new families need and deserve. Many states in the United States have enacted legislation or developed projects related to public education, screening, and/or treatment for perinatal mental health challenges. And, at the national level in the US, the 2020 Mom Project seeks to remove institutional barriers that prevent depressed new mothers from being identified and accessing treatment.

In spite of this progress, we do not see the prevalence of postpartum depression dropping. Globally, it is as high as 82.1% when measured using self-reported questionnaires and as high as 26.3% when measured using structured clinical interviews (Norhayati, Nik Hazlina, Asrenee, & Wan Emilin, 2014). In fact, we see that depression during pregnancy and after birth routinely goes undetected and untreated (Miller et al., 2012). How is that possible? And, beyond the statistics that we have now amassed, what is it really like to experience postpartum depression, come out the other side, and make meaning from the experience?

Posttraumatic Growth after Postpartum Depression

In her new book, Transformed by Postpartum Depression: Women’s Stories of Trauma and Growth, Walker Karraa, PhD (2014) invites readers to join her in a touching and thought provoking exploration of the potentially transformative nature of postpartum depression. Her book, which is based on the findings of her dissertation research (Karraa, 2013), brings to light both the suffering and development that women can experience on this journey. In fact, her book is one of the fruits of her own transformation through her experience of severe postpartum depression. Parents, lay supporters, and perinatal care providers who appreciate the blend of research and women’s voices found in books like Depression in New Mothers: Causes, Consequences, and Treatment Alternatives (Kendall-Tackett, 2010) and Traumatic Childbirth (Beck, Driscoll, & Watson, 2013) will also appreciate Karraa’s book. It should certainly be considered “required reading” for perinatal care providers and lay supporters.

walker karraa head shot 2015Karraa begins with a brief review of the literature, including what postpartum depression is, who develops it, and its global prevalence, risk factors, and consequences. These facts and figures help orient the reader to the general nature and scope of a veritable global mental health pandemic. They also serve to illustrate the foundation of the dominant discourse regarding postpartum depression: an allopathic worldview that frames mental illness as pathology. The following five chapters, however, contribute to an expansion of that view by illustrating how postpartum depression can be experienced as a long and painful journey culminating in positive change.

In the course of conducting her qualitative research, Karraa used grounded theory to analyze the answers of 20 women to four questions (Karraa, 2013) about their experience of postpartum depression:

  • How would you describe your process of transformation through postpartum depression?
  • In what ways did you experience the process of transformation through postpartum depression?
  • What were the ways you saw yourself transforming?
  • How do you experience this transformation currently?

She uncovered five stages of transformation through postpartum depression: before, during, ending, after, and beyond. That the women described 1) feeling shocked by the nature and magnitude of their symptoms, 2) enduring physical and psychological disintegration to which care providers seemed oblivious, and 3) slowly finding a path toward recovery will strike a familiar chord for lay supporters, perinatal care providers, and individuals who have worked and/or lived with postpartum depression. What might not be familiar to all readers are the last two stages that Karraa identified: 4) an increase in self-care, self-confidence, authenticity, and compassion; improved relationships; and alteration of perception of self and purpose in the world; and 5) coming to view postpartum depression as resulting—paradoxically—in a profoundly positive transformation.

In her 7th chapter, Karraa gives the reader a thoughtful tour of her consideration of several theories that might explain her research participants’ experiences of transformation through postpartum depression. Ultimately, she recognized that the prolonged endurance of threat to their physical and psychological survival was so great that the women experienced postpartum depression as a traumatic life event and that the transformative nature of their experience of postpartum depression is, thus, an example of posttraumatic growth: “positive psychological change experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances” (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).

In chapter 8, Karraa shares the confirming feedback of four experts in the field of postpartum depression, including the illustrious Cheryl Tatano Beck, Jane Shakespeare-Finch, Karen Kleinman, and Jane Honikman. Then she closes with a chapter acknowledging that her work has revealed a connection that has been right under our noses waiting for us to formally notice and describe: postpartum depression is one of the adversities of life that can precipitate growth. Karraa researched, recognized, and named that connection. Naming an experience honors it. It also provides a language for new parents, lay supporters, perinatal care providers, and researchers to use as they seek to express, understand, provide support for, treat, recover from, and/or grow from the life-altering experience of postpartum depression. And, perhaps most importantly, it offers hope to those who are fighting their way back from the devastation of postpartum depression. Not only can recovery be found at the end of the darkest tunnel; transformation may await.

Care Provider Failure: A Call to Action

The power of Karraa’s book continues in its appendices, where she describes an informal survey that serves as an(other) urgent call to action for all of us: in spite of the high prevalence of postpartum depression and its negative consequences when untreated, we are collectively failing to help those who are experiencing it. Because so many women in her qualitative study reported that their care providers had failed to help them, Karraa conducted the Changing Depression Survey (n=486). When asked who was most responsible for their getting help for postpartum depression, 65.4% of her participants selected “Self,” 23.0% selected “Partner,” 16.9% selected “Family Member,” 11.7% selected “Medical Care Provider” (which includes OB/GYN, Midwife, General or Family Physician), 8.8% selected “Other (Friend),” and 6.6% selected “Therapist.” When asked who was least helpful in getting them help for postpartum depression, 43.2% of her participants selected “Medical Care Provider,” 21% reported “Family Members,” 20.6% reported “Partner,” 19.3% reported “Self,” and 6.8% reported “Therapist.”

While this is, admittedly, an informal survey, the patterns seen here match clinical experience as well as research findings that only a fraction of new mothers with postpartum depression are identified and treated (Milgrom & Gemmill, 2014). My own clients, who are new parents, frequently report finding me after seeing a series of care providers who did not formally screen or refer them for perinatal mental health challenges, did not informally ask them about how they are coping with new parenthood, and/or did not respond with sensitivity, validation, or assistance when they tried to share their struggles. A delay in diagnosis, support, and treatment can both worsen and prolong suffering for new parents struggling through postpartum depression. Karraa’s research suggests that, in some cases, it may also delay the experience of posttraumatic growth.

This call to action must be heard and effectively responded to by individuals as well as by institutions. Yes, perinatal care providers and lay supporters will benefit from reading Karraa’s book. But, reading the book is not the same as developing the skills to apply the book’s insights in practice. Her research is an invitation for organizations and credentialing institutions in the diverse fields that provide services to new families (e.g., childbirth education, doula care, midwifery, obstetrics, pediatrics, family practice medicine, lactation education, lactation consulting, counseling, social work, psychiatry, naturopathic medicine) to develop, offer, and require training related to perinatal mental health, including:

  • how to reduce stigma and increase awareness by educating expectant and new parents about perinatal mental health issues
  • why, when, and how to screen and refer
  • how to effectively provide care to new parents struggling with perinatal mental health challenges—including using approaches that incorporate an understanding of postpartum depression as potential transformation to be nurtured, not just as pathological symptoms to be eliminated.

Conclusion

Transformed by Postpartum Depression: Women’s Stories of Trauma and Growth consistently engages the reader with the poignant and inspiring stories of 20 women, as well as with the intriguing insights of the author and four experts in the field. The moving narratives and cogent analysis effectively describe the women’s experience of postpartum depression as traumatic and the transformation of their suffering into growth. The book also invites us to transcend the dominant view of postpartum depression as pure pathology and to learn how to take effective action to keep new parents struggling with perinatal mental health challenges from falling through the cracks. I congratulate Dr. Karraa on authoring a book that makes such a meaningful contribution to our understanding of postpartum depression and, refreshingly, offers a significant focus on recovery and development. Join me here on this blog on Thursday to read my commentary regarding frameworks that might explain her findings as well as my hopes for future research.

References

Beck, C., Driscoll, J., & Watson, S. (2013). Traumatic Childbirth. New York: Routledge.

Karraa, W. (2013). Changing Depression: A Grounded Theory of the Transformational Dimension of Postpartum Depression. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest/UMI. (3607747.)

Karraa, W. (2014). Transformed by Postpartum Depression: Women’s Stories of Trauma and Growth. Amarillo, TX: Praeclarus Press.

Kendall-Tackett, K. (2010). Depression in New Mothers: Causes, Consequences, and Treatment Alternatives. New York: Routledge.

Milgrom, J. & Gemmill, A. (2014). Screening for perinatal depression. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 28(1), 13-23.

Miller, L., McGlynn, A., Suberlak, K., Rubin, L., Miller, M., & Pirec, V. (2012). Now What? Effects of On-Site Assessment on Treatment Entry After Perinatal Depression Screening. Journal of Women’s Health, 21(10), 1046-1052.

Norhayati, M., Nik Hazlina, N., Asrenee, A., & Wan Emilin, W. (2014). Magnitude and risk factors for postpartum symptoms: A literature review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 175C, 34-52.

Tedeschi, R. & Calhoun, L. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1-18.

About Cynthia Good Mojab

cynthia good mojab headshot 2015Cynthia Good Mojab, MS Clinical Psychology, is a Clinical Counselor, International Board Certified Lactation Consultant, author, award-winning researcher, and internationally recognized speaker. She is the Director of LifeCircle Counseling and Consulting, LLC where she specializes in providing perinatal mental health care. Cynthia is Certified in Acute Traumatic Stress Management and is a member of the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress and the National Center for Crisis Management. Her areas of focus include perinatal loss, grief, depression, anxiety, and trauma; lactational psychology; cultural competence; and social justice. She has authored, contributed to, and provided editorial review of numerous publications. Cynthia can be reached through her website.

Guest Posts, Infant Attachment, Maternal Mental Health, New Research, Perinatal Mood Disorders, Postpartum Depression, Research, Trauma work, Uncategorized , , , , , , ,

Care Model Innovations – Changing The Way Maternity Care Is Provided

February 17th, 2015 by avatar
© Serena O'Dwyer

© Serena O’Dwyer

Amy Romano was the original community manager, editor and writer of Science & Sensibility back when this blog was first established by Lamaze International in 2009.  After a healthy stint in that role, Amy has since moved on to other positions and most recently can be found in the position of Vice President of Health Ecosystems at Maternity Neighborhood, a technology company providing digital tools and apps to maternity health care providers around the world.  Additionally, Amy has been focused on finishing up her MBA at the same time.  (Talk about multitasking!)

While moving on to other things, Amy has not stopped blogging and I have been enjoying her most recent series on care model innovation in maternity care in particular and healthcare in general.  The series started in October of 2014, and Amy just published the seventh post in her ten post series. The entire series is part of Amy’s school work toward receiving her MBA.  That is a great blend of combining her degree program with her work, with her passion and interest.

Amy decided to look at four care models in particular: Nurse-Family Partnership, community-based doulas, midwife-led maternity services, and CenteringPregnancy. In talking with Amy, she shared that one of the things that really struck her is that these evidence-based care models are all very much relationship-based. She is more convinced than ever that trusting relationships are the “secret sauce” of good birth outcomes.

The posts available in the series so far include:

  1. What is care model innovation?
  2. The case for care model innovation in U.S. maternity care
  3. Care models that work: Nurse-Family Partnership
  4. Care models that work: Doulas as community health workers
  5. Care models that work: Midwife-led maternity services
  6. Care models that work: Group Prenatal Care
  7. Early examples of payment innovation in maternity care

And those posts yet to come:

8.  More mature payment reform models: An overview
9.  Driving community-based care through payment reform
10. The data infrastructure required for care model transformation

Particularly helpful are the references and learning resources that Amy includes in each of her posts, where the reader can go for more information and to dig deeper into the programs and research that Amy used to substantiate her research.

Changing the maternity care model currently in place is a critical piece for helping to improve the current status of both maternal morbidity and mortality as well as neonatal morbidity and mortality in the USA, which despite our abundance of resources, still has our world ranking in these categories shamefully at the bottom of the list.

According to Amy:

We’re in the midst of a “perfect storm” right now, with implementation of health care reform and lots of forces changing healthcare to be more patient-centered and integrated with community services. If ever there was a time when midwifery care, doulas, physiologic birth practices, etc., were going to take hold, that time is now.

As I have been reading Amy’s series, I have been struck by how some of her posts have reinforced the Lamaze Six Healthy Birth Practices themes, in particular #3 – Bring a friend, loved one or doula for continuous support, and #4 – Avoid interventions that are not medically necessary.

I asked Amy to share what her thoughts on what the role of the childbirth educator was in this time of transition.  Her response:

I think childbirth educators have lots of opportunities in the new healthcare landscape, but it will require a shift in thinking for some. New payment models will reward team-based care and CBEs have an important potential role as valued members of these teams, helping to implement shared decision making, help with care navigation/coordination, and extending educational offerings to postpartum/parenting, special conditions (e.g. gestational diabetes), etc. 

Amy Romano

Amy Romano

We need innovative ideas, forward thinking, and the ability to examine what we are currently doing with a critical eye, if we are to design and implement maternity care programs that improve outcomes and utilize resources more effectively to help mothers and babies.  As Amy highlights, there are existing programs that have shown great results and deserve the opportunity to be implemented on a wider scale.

Take some time to read the seven posts and come back to the Maternity Neighborhood blog to catch the final three when they become available.  Share your thoughts about what Amy is discussing as she rolls out the entire series.  And, consider what your role will be in the changing landscape of care that women receive during their childbearing year.

Babies, Childbirth Education, Doula Care, Healthcare Reform, Healthy Birth Practices, Maternal Mortality, Maternal Quality Improvement, Maternity Care, Midwifery, New Research, Newborns, Research , , , , , , ,

Epidurals: Do They or Don’t They Increase Cesareans?

January 27th, 2015 by avatar

By Henci Goer

In October, Author Henci Goer wrote an article for Science & Sensibility, Epidural Anesthesia: To Delay or Not To Delay – That is the Question – examining the impact of the timing of an epidural on labor and birth.  Today Henci looks at some new research, Epidural analgesia in labour and risk of caesarean delivery which seeks to determine whether receiving an epidural at all impacts the likelihood of a cesarean delivery.  Lamaze International has a great infographic on epidurals that you also may find very helpful. – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility.

© J. Wasikowski, provided by Birthtastic

© J. Wasikowski, provided by Birthtastic

Let’s start with a bit of background for those of you who didn’t personally live through the early controversy over whether epidurals increased the cesarean rate. As epidurals began to achieve popularity in the late 1970s and 1980s, one researcher sounded the alarm when he and his group published a study of 714 first-time mothers showing that even after excluding women with big babies and women whose labor pattern was abnormal prior to having an epidural, epidurals remained a potent factor in cesarean rates for delayed progress (Thorp 1989). Everyone pooh-poohed his finding on grounds that observational studies can’t truly determine whether epidurals lead to more cesareans or women experiencing more prolonged, painful labors, and therefore at higher risk for cesarean, were more likely to want epidurals. The “chicken versus egg” question, they argued, couldn’t be resolved without a randomized controlled trial (RCT), and it wasn’t likely that women would agree to be assigned by chance to have an epidural or not. In point of fact, that same year saw publication of a small Danish RCT (107 women, 104 of them first-time mothers) (Philipsen 1989). It reported that having an epidural nearly tripled the cesarean rate (16% vs. 6%) for “cephalopelvic disproportion” despite no clinical evidence of CPD being a requirement for inclusion. The investigators ignored this, however, concluding only that instrumental vaginal delivery rates were similar, and epidurals provided better pain relief. In any case, the anesthetic dose was much higher than was already becoming the norm, so it could be reasonably argued that the trial’s findings wouldn’t apply to modern-day practice.

Thorp, meanwhile, took up the RCT challenge. He and his colleagues carried out an epidural versus no epidural trial in 93 first-time mothers and found that epidurals did, in fact, lead to cesareans (25% vs. 2%), not vice versa (Thorp 1993). That bit of unwelcome news precipitated a stampede to perform more RCTs, and when enough of those had accumulated, to a series of systematic reviews pooling their data (meta-analysis), of which the Cochrane review, Anim-Somuah et al. (2011), is the latest. These reached the more comfortable conclusion that epidurals didn’t increase likelihood of cesarean, and pro-epiduralists breathed a collective sigh of relief and went back, if they had ever stopped, to unreservedly recommending epidurals. (This rather sweeps under the rug the other problems epidurals can cause, but that’s a topic for another day.)

Weaknesses of the “Epidural” vs. “No Epidural” Trials

Epidural

By User:Ravedave (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)

The finding that epidurals don’t increase cesareans is puzzling because they increase likelihood of factors associated with them (Anim-Somuah 2011). For one thing, they increase use of oxytocin to augment labor, which implies they slow labor. For another, more women run fevers, and it stands to reason that a woman progressing slowly who starts running a fever is a likely candidate for cesarean. For a third, the difference in fetal malposition (occiput posterior) rates at delivery comes close to achieving statistical significance, meaning the difference is unlikely to be due to chance. Persistent OP is strongly associated with cesarean delivery (Cheng 2006; Fitzpatrick 2001; Phipps 2014; Ponkey 2003; Senecal 2005; Sizer 2000). Epidurals even increase cesareans for fetal distress by 40%, although the absolute difference didn’t amount to much (1 more per 100 women). Could a difference exist and meta-analysis of RCTs fail to detect it?

A string of well-conducted observational studies over the years have suggested that they could (Eriksen 2011; Kjaergaard 2008; Lieberman 1996; Nguyen 2010), the most recent of which is a very large, very convincing study published last fall (Bannister-Tyrrell 2014). Its authors point out, as have others before them, the weaknesses of the RCTs, weaknesses serious enough to nullify their results or make them inapplicable to typical community practice (external validity).

To begin with, in most trials, substantial percentages of women allocated to the non-epidural group ended up having epidurals, and some women allocated to the epidural group ended up not having one. Since RCTs analyze results according to group assignment (to do otherwise would negate the point of random assignment, which is to avoid bias), not what actually happened, this diminishes differences between groups. In addition, trials were mostly confined to women with no medical or obstetric complications who were treated according to strict protocols for labor management and indications for cesarean delivery. Neither is the case in most hospitals. To these I would add that many trials lumped together first-time mothers and women with prior births when reporting outcomes. First-time mothers are much more susceptible to factors that impede progress, so including women with prior vaginal births can make it appear that epidurals are less problematic for first-time mothers than they really are. In addition, three of the trials were carried out in a hospital where participants were mostly attended by midwives, and cesarean rates were much lower than is common for women attended by obstetricians.

All of this means that any null results in meta-analyses of the trials can be taken with a grain of salt, any findings of significant differences probably represent a minimal value, and first-time moms may be harder hit than appears. To cite one example, Anim-Somuah (2011) reported that 5 more women per 100 having epidurals had a malpositioned baby at delivery (18% vs. 13%) in the 4 trials reporting this outcome, a difference, as I said, that just missed achieving statistical significance. But when I confined results to the two trials in first-time mothers alone in which 10% or fewer of the women in the “no-epidural” group had an epidural, the gap widened to 9 more per 100 (11% vs. 2%).

Summary of the Bannister-Tyrrell (2014) Analysis

Bannister-Tyrrell and colleagues (2014) drew their population from a database of 210,700 Australian women with no prior cesareans who were laboring at term with a singleton, head-down baby. A strength of the database was that, unlike most, it distinguished epidurals for labor from epidurals for delivery. Using a long list of factors, investigators constructed a propensity score for how likely a woman was to have an epidural, matched women according to their score, and compared results according to whether women with the same score had or didn’t have an epidural. Matched controls were found for 52,600 women who had an epidural and were found across the full range of propensity scores. Women having epidurals were 2.5 times more likely to have a cesarean (20% vs. 8%), or put another way, 12 more women per 100 having epidurals had a cesarean (absolute excess), which amounts to 1 additional cesarean for every 8.5 women having an epidural (number needed to harm). Among first-time mothers, women having epidurals were 2.4 times more likely to have a cesarean. Study authors didn’t provide cesarean rates for this subgroup, but the raw cesarean rates overall were 18% in first-time mothers versus 2% in women with prior births, so the effect on this more vulnerable population could be dire.

But there’s still more. Investigators further adjusted for confounding factors not captured in their database. These included differences in health-care settings (same state but not same city), care provider (women without epidurals are more likely to be attended by midwives), and for confounding interventions more likely with epidurals (continuous fetal monitoring). Relative risk of cesarean with an epidural remained at 2.5. Investigators then adjusted for the association between occiput posterior baby and cesarean by setting estimates of the risk ratio to exceed the strongest associations reported in the literature, and they assumed that the prevalence of severe labor pain was 3 to 4 times higher in women having epidurals. Factoring these into their statistical analysis reduced the risk ratio, but women having epidurals still were 50% more likely to have a cesarean. This means that with a baseline cesarean rate of 8% in women without an epidural, 12% of women with an epidural will have one or 4 more women per 100 or 1 more cesarean for every 25 women.

The Take-Home

At the very least we cannot assure women with confidence that epidurals don’t increase the likelihood of cesarean. For this reason and because of their numerous other drawbacks and considering that comfort measures and other strategies have been shown to be both effective for most women and free of adverse effects (Declercq 2006; Jones 2012), women may want to make epidurals Plan B rather than Plan A. That being said, whatever their choice, women can minimize their chance of cesarean—with or without an epidural—by choosing a midwife or doctor whose policies and practices promote spontaneous vaginal birth http://www.lamaze.org/HealthyBirthPractices.

References

Anim-Somuah, M., Smyth, R. M., & Jones, L. (2011). Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(12), CD000331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22161362

Bannister-Tyrrell, M., Ford, J. B., Morris, J. M., & Roberts, C. L. (2014). Epidural analgesia in labour and risk of caesarean delivery. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 28(5), 400-411. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25040829

Cheng, Y. W., Shaffer, B. L., & Caughey, A. B. (2006). Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: A retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 19(9), 563-568. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16966125?dopt=Citation

Declercq, E., Sakala, C., Corry, M. P., & Applebaum, S. (2006). Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women’s Childbearing Experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection. http://childbirthconnection.org/pdfs/LTMII_report.pdf

Eriksen, L. M., Nohr, E. A., & Kjaergaard, H. (2011). Mode of delivery after epidural analgesia in a cohort of low-risk nulliparas. Birth, 38(4), 317-326. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112332

Fitzpatrick, M., McQuillan, K., & O’Herlihy, C. (2001). Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol, 98(6), 1027-1031. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11755548?dopt=Citation

Jones, L., Othman, M., Dowswell, T., Alfirevic, Z., Gates, S., Newburn, M., . . . Neilson, J. P. (2012). Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3, CD009234. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419342

Kjaergaard, H., Olsen, J., Ottesen, B., Nyberg, P., & Dykes, A. K. (2008). Obstetric risk indicators for labour dystocia in nulliparous women: a multi-centre cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 8, 45. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18837972?dopt=Citation

Lieberman, E., Lang, J. M., Cohen, A., D’Agostino, R., Jr., Datta, S., & Frigoletto, F. D., Jr. (1996). Association of epidural analgesia with cesarean delivery in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 88(6), 993-1000. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8942841

Nguyen, U. S., Rothman, K. J., Demissie, S., Jackson, D. J., Lang, J. M., & Ecker, J. L. (2010). Epidural analgesia and risks of cesarean and operative vaginal deliveries in nulliparous and multiparous women. Matern Child Health J, 14(5), 705-712. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19760498?dopt=Citation

Philipsen, T., & Jensen, N. H. (1989). Epidural block or parenteral pethidine as analgesic in labour; a randomized study concerning progress in labour and instrumental deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 30(1), 27-33. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2924990

Phipps, H., Hyett, J. A., Graham, K., Carseldine, W. J., Tooher, J., & de Vries, B. (2014). Is there an association between sonographically determined occipito-transverse position in the second stage of labor and operative delivery? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 93(10), 1018-1024. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25060716

Ponkey, S. E., Cohen, A. P., Heffner, L. J., & Lieberman, E. (2003). Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol, 101(5 Pt 1), 915-920. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12738150?dopt=Citation

Senecal, J., Xiong, X., Fraser, W. D., & Pushing Early Or Pushing Late with Epidural study, group. (2005). Effect of fetal position on second-stage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol, 105(4), 763-772. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15802403

Sizer, A. R., & Nirmal, D. M. (2000). Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 96(5 Pt 1), 749-752. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11042312?dopt=Citation

Thorp, J. A., Hu, D. H., Albin, R. M., McNitt, J., Meyer, B. A., Cohen, G. R., & Yeast, J. D. (1993). The effect of intrapartum epidural analgesia on nulliparous labor: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 169(4), 851-858. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8238138?dopt=Citation

Thorp, J. A., Parisi, V. M., Boylan, P. C., & Johnston, D. A. (1989). The effect of continuous epidural analgesia on cesarean section for dystocia in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 161(3), 670-675. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2782350

About Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer

Henci Goer, award-winning medical writer and internationally known speaker, is the author of The Thinking Woman’s Guide to a Better Birth and Optimal Care in Childbirth: The Case for a Physiologic Approach She is the winner of the American College of Nurse-Midwives “Best Book of the Year” award. An independent scholar, she is an acknowledged expert on evidence-based maternity care.  

 

Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Epidural Analgesia, Guest Posts, Healthy Birth Practices, Medical Interventions, New Research, Pain Management, Research , , , , , , ,

“Pathway to a Healthy Birth” – Using Consumer Materials from Hormonal Physiology of Childbearing Report in Your Classes.

January 22nd, 2015 by avatar

Screen Shot 2015-01-21 at 6.01.46 PMLast week, Dr. Sarah Buckley in coordination with Childbirth Connection released a new research report, “Hormonal Physiology of Childbearing: Evidence and Implications for Women, Babies and Maternity Care.”  This massive tome gathers in one place, all the current information available on the role of various hormones on pregnancy, labor, birth, breastfeeding and postpartum and provides information on what happens to the processes when interventions are introduced.  Well known childbirth educator Penny Simkin reviewed the report on Science & Sensibility on January 13th and then Michele Ondeck followed up with an exclusive Science & Sensibility interview with Sarah Buckley later in the week.

I think that everyone will acknowledge that this report is a remarkable and valuable piece of work, but at over 400 pages if you take into account all accompanying documents and with a bibliography consisting of over 1100 sources, the typical pregnant woman is hardly going to be keeping a copy on their bedside table for some light reading before drifting off to sleep.  Today on Science & Sensibility, I would like to highlight the resources and tools that Childbirth Connection has thoughtfully provided that are geared specifically for the consumer.  Childbirth educators, doulas and health care providers can access and share these materials with their students, clients and patients.

Pathway to a Healthy Birth – How to Help Your Hormones to Do Their Wonderful Work – consumer booklet

This 17 page colorful consumer booklet is written in easy to comprehend language and illustrated with attractive photographs that show a diverse collection of families.  Families are introduced to the hormones of birth and postpartum; oxytocin, beta-endorphins, catecholamines and endorphins.  Each hormone has a brief description and a short explanation about the role it plays in childbearing.

Families are told that events can interfere with the intended actions of the childbearing hormones.  Birthing women are encourage to think about how activities around them during their labor and birth may interfere with hormones and prevent the hormones from working effectively.

Women learn that hormones prepare her body for an efficient labor and birth.  The booklet addresses how women’s bodies are prepared by some hormones to handle the pain and stress that may accompany labor. They also find out that the hormones help prepare their babies for the newborn transition.  Infant attachment and maternal behaviors are also supported by the role of the hormones.

Follow Angela’s Birth Story

Families are introduced to “Angela” and read about her labor and birth story.  The story shows how the hormones allow the labor and birth to unfold in support of the normal processes and how small things can have a big impact and disrupt the process.  For example, The transition from home to hospital reduces the intensity and frequency of Angela’s contractions as a result of interference with the normal hormonal process.  The story is filled with lots of strategies to encourage and allow the hormonal effects as they are intended to occur.

It is easy to see from Angela’s story, that while labor and birth are hard and do involve pain, with the right support and environment, along with best practices that endorse physiological birth, Angela is able let her body do the work it is designed to do, and have a birth that is very satisfying to her.

“What’s Happening”

Accompanying the story is an easy to read guide that demonstrates exactly what the hormones of childbearing are doing at each particular point in Angela’s story.  Explanations of the role of each hormone as things unfold help families to understand how what happens in their own birth can affect their own birth story and outcome.

What Can You Do

The next portion of the brochure offers steps that families can take to help them identify providers and facilities that support physiologic birth.  Lists of questions to ask, tips for making a hospital room comfortable and private, interview questions for their doctor or midwife, how to pick a childbirth class, find a doula, how to determine if medical procedures are necessary and explore less interventive alternatives and more are all there in an easy to digest format. Included are valuable links in the final section that makes the booklet resource rich.  There are many web links to get more information about all the topics covered above.  This makes the booklet an ideal handout for a childbirth class, doula consultation or meet and greet with potential health care providers.

Infographic

Screen Shot 2015-01-21 at 6.03.49 PMThere is a consumer infographic that can be printed in a size suitable for hanging in a classroom or office, or provided in a smaller format that makes a great accompaniment to the above booklet.  The infographic identifies things that can keep a woman on the “pathway” to a physiological birth and what can steer her away from the pathway.  There is a lot of similarity between the points made in this infographic and the Lamaze Six Healthy Birth Practices.

One teaching idea

After discussing the role of hormones in labor and sharing the infographic as a visual aid, I can easily see how an educator can play a game with her class – making and distributing cards to class members with scenarios on them, and asking families to share if those scenarios and activities are making it easier for the mother to stay on the physiological pathway or what steers her further away and having the students identify which hormones are affected.

We have a responsibility as childbirth educators to share the important role the hormones of childbearing play in supporting healthy mothers, healthy births and healthy babies.  Using the Pathway to a Healthy Birth consumer booklet and accompanying infographic as part of your teaching materials provides a simple to understand but effective tool for conveying this information to the families you interact with.

How do you see yourself using these consumer products in your childbirth classes?  With your doula clients?  Please share your ideas for teaching, discussing and using this material and covering these topics with the families you work with.  I would love to hear your thoughts.

Babies, Breastfeeding, Childbirth Education, Healthy Birth Practices, Infant Attachment, Medical Interventions, Newborns, Research, Transforming Maternity Care , , , , , ,

Practice Variation in Cesarean Rates: Not Due to Maternal Complications

November 13th, 2014 by avatar

By Pam Vireday

Pam Vireday, an occasional contributor to Science & Sensibility reviews the recent study by Katy Kozhimannil, PhD and colleagues that examined the differences in cesarean rates between over a thousand hospitals in the USA.  Consumers of maternity care quite possibly do not realize what a significant impact their choice of facility (and provider) may have on their birth outcome.  Can you think of hospitals in your own community serving similar populations of pregnant families that have drastically different cesarean rates.  Have you considered why that might be?  Do you think that the families you work with have explored this too?  Do they even have access to this information?  Read Pam’s discussion of this recent study below.  – Sharon Muza, Community Manager, Science & Sensibility.

© Patti Ramos Photography

© Patti Ramos Photography

There’s a new study out that discusses the variation in cesarean rates between hospitals in the United States. “Maternal clinical diagnoses and hospital variation in the risk of cesarean delivery: Analyses of a national US hospital discharge database” was released late last month and has received a lot of press and discussion ever since.

Practice variation is a serious problem in obstetrics (Arcia 2013). Women are often far more at risk for a cesarean in certain hospitals than in others, even when the hospitals serve the same geographical area and population (Arnold, January 2013 and August 2012).

Of course, care providers protest that some hospitals have higher cesarean rates because they serve higher-risk patients. This is a valid point, but it still doesn’t explain the wide variation in rates between many hospitals (Clark 2007).

For example, in a press release about the new study, the mother’s risk status and diagnoses did not explain the variation in cesarean rates between hospitals:

“We found that the variability in hospital cesarean rates was not driven by differences in maternal diagnoses or pregnancy complexity,” said [lead study author] Kozhimannil. “This means there was significantly higher variation in hospital rates than would be expected based on women’s health conditions. On average, the likelihood of cesarean delivery for an individual woman varied between 19 and 48 percent across hospitals.”

Other key points highlighted included:

  • Among lower risk women, likelihood of cesarean delivery varied between 8 and 32 percent across hospitals.
  • Among higher risk women, likelihood of cesarean delivery varied between 56 and 92 percent across hospitals.
  • Hospital variability did not decrease after adjusting for patient diagnoses, socio-demographics, and hospital characteristics.

This shows that practice variation in cesarean rates is real, substantive, and not just a reflection of the mother’s risk level. 

Perhaps now we can stop playing the mother blame-game when we talk about cesarean rates? (Declerq 2006, Oganowski 2011)

This study is not the first to show that the culture of a hospital, its policies, and its routine practices all help determine how likely a woman is to “need” a cesarean in that hospital.

For example, Cáceres 2013 found that even after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors and including only NTSV (Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex) pregnancies, the cesarean rate varied significantly between Massachusetts hospitals, “suggesting the importance of hospital practices and culture in determining a hospital’s cesarean rate.”

In addition, a 2014 consensus statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine notes, “Variation in the rates of nulliparous, term, singleton, vertex cesarean births also indicates that clinical practice patterns affect the number of cesarean births performed.”

Preventing cesareans when possible is important because while cesareans can be life-saving at times, they present more risk for maternal infection, bleeding and blood clots, and more neonatal breathing problems (Liu 2007, Visser 2014).

Notably, a large case-control study in U.K. maternity units found that delivery by cesarean was a strong risk factor for severe sepsis (Acosta 2014). Other research has found a high rate of maternal complications (Pallasmaa 2010) and poorer neonatal outcomes (Kolås 2006) associated with cesareans.

In addition, a cesarean’s potential negative effect on future pregnancies is important (Silver 2012). One American study found that the rate of an abnormal placental attachment increased in conjunction with the rise in cesarean delivery rate (Wu 2005), while a Canadian study found that a prior cesarean was associated with an increased risk for adverse neonatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancies (Abenhaim and Benjamin 2011).

Bottom line, it matters where and with whom a woman gives birth in order to lessen the risk for complications, both now and in the future.

But many women naively choose their care provider for pregnancy based mostly on convenience and location, not realizing that their chances of surgical birth may vary greatly depending on which hospital and caregiver they use (Arnold 2014, Arnold January 9 2013).

Childbirth Connection, a leading consumer education site, points out:

Research suggests that the same woman might have a c-section at one hospital but a vaginal birth if she gave birth at another, just because of the different policies and practices of those hospitals. One of the most effective ways to lower your chance of having a c-section is to have your baby in a setting with a low c-section rate.

Yet it is not always easy to find out the cesarean rates of local hospitals in some areas. For example, the health departments of Missouri, South Carolina, and Washington D.C. do not make hospital-level cesarean rates available to consumers.

Hospitals remain largely unaccountable for high cesarean rates, although we are beginning to see marginal progress in some places towards more accountability (Gentry 2014 and Dekker 2014). In the meantime, however, thousands of women are undergoing cesareans, many of which might be preventable with changes in clinical practices (Boyle 2013).

And even when a cesarean is truly necessary, there can be large discrepancies in complications afterwards between hospitals (Alonso-Zaldivar 2014). It’s not just about how many cesareans are done, but also about which hospitals have the best outcomes when a cesarean is done. Without more information, how is a woman to know which hospital to choose?

Bottom line, more transparency and accountability are needed. As the lead author of the study states:

Women deserve evidence-based, consistent, high-quality maternity care, regardless of the hospital where they give birth…and these results indicate that we have a long way to go toward reaching this goal in the U.S.

*To search for hospital-level cesarean rates in your area, see www.cesareanrates.com or the 2014 Consumer Reports article (subscription required) rating hospitals in 22 states.

Do you ever encourage your students and clients to look at the cesarean rates (and rates of other interventions which may lead to cesareans) of the hospitals they are considering birthing in.  Please share your experience in our comments section. – SM

References

Abenhaim, H. A., & Benjamin, A. (2011). Effect of prior cesarean delivery on neonatal outcomes. Journal of perinatal medicine39(3), 241-244. PMID: 21426242

Acosta, C. D., Kurinczuk, J. J., Lucas, D. N., Tuffnell, D. J., Sellers, S., & Knight, M. (2014). Severe Maternal Sepsis in the UK, 2011–2012: A National Case-Control Study. PLoS medicine11(7), e1001672. PMID: 25003759

Alonso-Zaldivar, R (2014, August 27). Study: Wide hospital quality gap on maternity care. Retrieved from http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140827/GJLIFESTYLES/140809539/0/SEARCH.

Arcia, A (2013, February 3). What is practice variation in obstetrics and why should I care? Retrieved from http://www.cesareanrates.com/blog/2013/2/3/what-is-practice-variation-in-obstetrics-and-why-should-i-ca.html.

Arnold, J (2012, August 22). Practice variation in New Jersey: 27 miles and 28 percentage points. Retrieved from http://www.cesareanrates.com/blog/2012/8/22/practice-variation-in-new-jersey-27-miles-and-28-percentage.html.

Arnold, J (2013, January 9). Practice variation in East Los Angeles cesarean rates. Retrieved from http://www.cesareanrates.com/blog/2013/1/9/practice-variation-in-east-los-angeles-cesarean-rates.html.

Arnold, J (2013, January 7). Practice variation in West Virginia: 60 miles and 54 percentage points. Retireved from http://www.cesareanrates.com/blog/2013/1/7/practice-variation-in-west-virginia-60-miles-and-54-percenta.html.

Arnold, J (2014, March 13). Three miles/Cinco Kilometros. Retrieved from http://www.cesareanrates.com/blog/2014/3/13/three-miles-cinco-kilometros.html.

Boyle, A., Reddy, U. M., Landy, H. J., Huang, C. C., Driggers, R. W., & Laughon, S. K. (2013). Primary cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology122(1), 33-40. PMID: 23743454

Cáceres IA, Arcaya M, Declercq E, Belanoff CM, Janakiraman V, Dohen B, Ecker J, Smith LA, Subramanian SV (2013). 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. PMID:23526952

Clark SL, Belfort MA, Hankins GD, Meyers JA, Houser FM (2007). Variation in the rates of operative delivery in the United States. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 196(6):526.e1-526.e5.  PMID: 17547880

Caughey, A. B., Cahill, A. G., Guise, J. M., & Rouse, D. J. (2014). Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology,210(3), 179-193. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026. PMID:24565430

Declercq, E., Menacker, F., & MacDorman, M. (2006). Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991–2002. American journal of public health, 96(5), 867. PMID: 16571712

Dekker, R (2014, October 29). U.S. hospitals held accountable for C-section rates. Retrieved from http://www.birthbythenumbers.org/?p=1731

DePoint, M (2014, October 22). Maternal diagnoses doesn’t explain variation in cesarean rates across US hospitals. University of Minnesota, School of Public Health. Retrieved from http://sph.umn.edu/maternal-diagnoses-doesnt-explain-variation-cesarean-rates-across-us-hospitals/.

Gentry, C (2014, May 14). FL still C-section hotspot. Retrieved from http://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/fl-still-c-section-hotspot.

Kolås, T., Saugstad, O. D., Daltveit, A. K., Nilsen, S. T., & Øian, P. (2006). Planned cesarean versus planned vaginal delivery at term: comparison of newborn infant outcomes. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology,195(6), 1538-1543. PMID: 16846577

Kozhimannil KB, Arcaya MC, Subramanian SV (2014). Maternal clinical diagnoses and hospital variation in the risk of cesarean delivery: Analyses of a national US hospital discharge database.  PLoS medicine, 11(10):e1001745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001745. PMID: 25333943

Liu, S., Liston, R. M., Joseph, K. S., Heaman, M., Sauve, R., & Kramer, M. S. (2007). Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Canadian medical association journal176(4), 455-460. PMID: 17296957

Oganowski, K (2010, January 13). The C-section blame game: I’ve reached my boiling point. Retrieved from http://birthingbeautifulideas.com/?p=1245.

Pallasmaa, N., Ekblad, U., AITOKALLIO‐TALLBERG, A. N. S. A., Uotila, J., Raudaskoski, T., ULANDER, V., & Hurme, S. (2010). Cesarean delivery in Finland: maternal complications and obstetric risk factors. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica89(7), 896-902. PMID: 20583935

Phend, C (2013, March 5). C-Section rates vary widely between hospitals, study finds. MedPage Today. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/section-rates-vary-widely-hospitals-study-finds/story?id=18656847.

Silver, R. M. (2012, October). Implications of the first cesarean: perinatal and future reproductive health and subsequent cesareans, placentation issues, uterine rupture risk, morbidity, and mortality. In Seminars in perinatology (Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 315-323). WB Saunders. PMID: 23009962

Visser GH (2014). Women are designed to deliver vaginally and not by Cesarean section: An obstetrician’s view. Neonatology, 107(1):8-13. PMID: 25301178

What every pregnant woman needs to know about Cesarean section (2012). Childbirth Connection. Retrieved from http://www.childbirthconnection.org/pdfs/cesareanbooklet.pdf.

What hospitals don’t want you to know about C-sections (2014, May). Consumer Reports. Retrieved from http://consumerreports.org/cro/2014/05/what-hospitals-do-not-want-you-to-know-about-c-sections/index.htm.

Wu, S., Kocherginsky, M., & Hibbard, J. U. (2005). Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology192(5), 1458-1461. PMID: 15902137

A version of this post originally appeared on www.wellroundedmama.blogspot.com

About Pam Vireday

Painting by Mary Cassatt, 1844-1926. (public domain) Image from Wikimedia Commons.

Pam Vireday is a childbirth educator, writer, woman of size, and mother to four children. She has been collecting the stories of women of size and writing about childbirth research for 17 years. She writes at www.wellroundedmama.blogspot.com and www.plus-size-pregnancy.org.

 

Cesarean Birth, Childbirth Education, Evidence Based Medicine, Guest Posts, Medical Interventions, New Research, Research , , , , ,