The comparison of birth outcomes and birth experiences of low-risk women in different sized midwifery practices in the Netherlands

Women and Birth

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 103-110

  Yvonne Fontein, J A C A ^a  

^a GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Birth interventions; Birth outcomes; Midwifery; Practice size; Referral

Indexed keywords

PETHIDINE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MIDWIFE; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT REFERRAL; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RURAL AREA; URBAN AREA;

EID: 77955510831     PISSN: 18715192     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.wombi.2010.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Smeenk A., ten Have H. Medicalization and obstetric care: an analysis of developments in Dutch midwifery. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2003, 6(2):153-156.
2. Benoit C., Wrede S., Bourgeault I., Sandall J., de Vries R., Teijlingen van E. Understanding the social organization of maternity care systems: Midwifery as a touchstone. Sociology of Health and Illness 2005, 26(6):722-737.
3. Mulder M. Besluitvorming NZa eenzijdig verzoek KNOV inzake aanpassing rekennorm. Directie zorgmarkten cure. Nederlandse Zorg Autoriteit; 2009 (Decisionmaking NZa limited request Dutch College of Midwives in relation to adaptation norm calculation).
4. Brinkman K. De poortwachtersfunctie en de verloskundige zorg. Tijdschrift voor Verloskundigen 2008, 33(11):16-21. [The Gatekeeper's position and midwifery care].
5. CVZ. Verloskundige Vademecum 2003. Amstelveen: College voor Zorgverzekeringen (Obstetric manual); 2003.
6. Reuwer P., Bruinse H. Preventive support of labour 2002, van Zuiden Communications BB, Alphen aan den Rijn, p. 17-21.
7. Bais J. Obstetric outcome in nulliparous and multiparous women with singleton pregnancies, according to risk selection. Risk selection and detection. A critical appraisal of the Dutch obstetric system 2004, Academisch Medisch Centrum, Amsterdam.
8. Elferink P. Praktijk NVO/NVU grafieken. Utrecht: Prismant; 2005 (Graphs delayed first and second stage Dutch midwifery practices).
9. Putten van I. Keizersnede bij stuitligging; zo gek nog niet?. Tijdschrift voor Verloskundigen 2005, 30(3):17-21. [Caesarean Section; not such a bad idea after all?].
10. KNOV. Kwaliteitssysteem verloskunde praktijkvoering. Praktijk Analyse Instrument. Bilthoven: Koninklijke Nederlandse Organisatie van Verloskundigen; 2006 (Quality register midwifery practise. Practice Analysis Instrument).
11. TietoEnator. Praktijkanalyse 2005. 1e lijns verloskunde. Utrecht: Prismant; 2007 (Practice analysis 2005. Primary care midwifery).
12. Janssen B., Wiegers T. Ontwikkelingen in de verloskundige zorgverlening. Tijdschrift voor Verloskundigen 2005, 30(10):23-28. [Development in midwifery care].
13. Waelput A., Becker Hoff J. Hoeveel verloskundigen zijn er nodig?. Tijdschrift voor Verloskundigen 2005, 30(5):11-13. [How many midwives are required to do the job?].
14. Muysken J., Kenens R., Hingstman L. Cijfers uit de registratie van verloskundigen 2006, NIVEL, Utrecht, p. 8-18, 24, 32-33 [Registration figures midwives].
15. Wiegers T. Monitor verloskundige zorgverlening. Samenvatting vierde meting, najaar 2004 2005, NIVEL, Utrecht, p. 3-7, 16-24 [Monitoring midwifery care. Synopsis fourth measurement, autumn 2004].
16. van der H., van der H. Dutch midwives: relational care and birth location. Health and Social Care in the Community 1999, 7(4):242.
17. Wiegers T., van der Zee J., Kerssens J., Keirse J. Variation in home birth rates between midwifery practices in the Netherlands. Midwifery 2000, 16:96-104.
18. Lavender T., Chapple J. An exploration of midwives' views of the current system of maternity care in England. Midwifery 2004, 20:324-334.
19. Tinkler A., Quinney D. Team midwifery: the influence of the midwife-woman relationship on women's experiences and perceptions of maternity care. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1998, 28(1):30-35.
20. Warren C. Exploring the value of midwifery continuity of carer. British Journal of Midwifery 2003, 11(10):S34-37.
21. Tuijl van T. Doula's kunnen wel verschil maken. Tijdschrift voor Verloskundigen 2006, 31(7/8):50-51. [Doulas can make a difference].
22. Vrielink G. Vroedvrouwen aan de bakermat van een " gesont volckje" Tijdschrift voor Verloskunde 2006, 31(95):23-25. [Midwives at the roots of a healthy population].
23. Rijnders M., Baston H., Schönbeck Y., van der Pal K., Prins M., Green J., et al. Perinatal factors related to negative or positive recall of birth experience in women 3 years postpartum in the Netherlands. Birth 2008, 35(2):107-116.
24. Timmermans J, van Campen C, Hessing J. Sociaal en Cultureel Rapport 2002. The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau; 2002. p. 275-330 [Social and cultural Report 2002].
25. Broeders J. De toekomst in met eerstelijns verloskundige zorg - een innovatieplan voor de region Groot Kennemerland. Haarlem: Selza (ROS); 2004 [The future of primary midwifery care-an innovation for the region Groot Kennemerland].
26. Van Linschoten C., Moorer P., Voorrips R. Langs de eerste lijn. Wensen en verwachtingen van de Nederlandse bevolking ten aanzien van de eerste lijnszorg 2004, Argo, Groningen, p. 1-13 [Wishes and expectations of the Dutch population in relation to primary care].
27. Zeeman C. Wat is de thuisbevalling waard? Een analyse van vrouwelijkheid, technologie en macht in de Nederlandse geboortecultuur. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Faculteit de maatschappij en gedragswetenschappen. Opleiding culturele antropologie en sociologie der niet westerse samenlevingen. Unpublished; 2004 [What is the value of home birth? An analysis of feminity, technology and power in the Dutch birthing culture].
28. Smit M., Friele R. De agenda van de patient 2005, NIVEL, Utrecht, p. 7-45 [The patient's agenda].
29. Offerhaus P, de Boer J, Daemers D. Standard niet-vorderende ontsluiting. Aanbevelingen voor verloskundig beleid, begeleiding en preventie. Bilthoven; Koninklijke Nederlandse Organisatie van Verloskundigen; 2006 [Guideline delayed first stage of labour. Recommendations for midwifery management, support and prevention].
30. Wiegers T., Janssen B. Monitor verloskundige zorgverlening. Eindrapport 2006, NIVEL, Utrecht, p. 84-85 [Monitoring midwifery care. Final report].
31. Tyler S. Comparing the campaigning profile of maternity user groups in Europe-can we learn anything useful?. Health Expectations 2002, 5(2):136-149.
32. Luyben A., Fleming V. Women's needs from antenatal care in three European countries. Midwifery 2005, 21:212-223.
33. Winters A., Kleefstra S., Kool R., Steenbeek R. Tevreden, maar het kan beter. Tevredenheid van patiënten in Universitair Medische Centra 2004, Prismant, Utrecht, p. 7, 9, 11-14, 21 [Satisfied, but it could be better. Satisfaction of patients in University Medical Centres].
34. Johnson M., Langdon R., Young L., Stewart H., Kelly P. Comprehensive measurement of maternal satisfaction. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2002, 8:127-136.
35. van Teijlingen E., Hundley V., Rennie A., Graham W., Fitzmaurice A. Maternity studies and their limitations: " What is, must still be best" Birth 2003, 30(2):75-82.
36. Bailham D., Slade P., Joseph S. Principal components analysis of the perceptions of labour and delivery scale and revised scoring criteria. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 2004, 22(3):157-165.
37. Wijma K., Wijma B., Zar M. Psychometric aspects of the W-DEQ: a new questionnaire for the measurement of fear of childbirth. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1998, 19(2).
38. Öhman S., Grunewald C., Waldenström U. Women's worries during pregnancy: testing the Cambridge Worry Scale on 200 Swedish women. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 2003, 17:148-152.
39. Cox J., Holden J., Sagovsky R. Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) 1996, University of Edinburgh, Department of Psychiatry, Edinburgh.
40. Beentjes M, Plochg T, de Wolf S, Rijnders M. Inzicht in positieve en negatieve factoren die bijdragen aan de bevallingservaring met betrekking tot de verloskundige zorgverlening in Nederland. Kennispoort conferentie, 11 December 2008, Utrecht; 2008 (Insight in positive and negative factors contributing to birth experiences in relation to midwifery care in the Netherlands).
41. CBS Statline Population key figures 2007, Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek, Voorburg/Heerlen.
42. Bowling A. Research methods in health. Investigating health and health services 2002, Open University Press, Buckingham.
43. Hodnett E.D. Pain and women's satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002, 186:160-172.
44. Olde E. Childbirth-related posttraumatic stress: a prospective longitudinal study on risk factors 2006, Ponssen and Looijen BV, Wageningen.
45. Sandall J., Davies J., Warwick C. Evaluation of the Albany midwifery practice 2001, King's College Hospital, London.
46. Stevens T., McCourt C. One-to-one midwifery practice part I: setting the scene. British Journal of Midwifery 2001, 9(12):736-740.
47. VWS. '29 april 2008 in antwoord op de kamervragen van Kamerlid Halsema en in mijn notitie 'Kiezen voor bereikbaarheid en kwaliteit van zorg'. The Hague: De Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport; 2008 (29 April 2008 reply to the States General Chamber member Halsema's quiry 'Choosing accessibility and quality of care').
48. Anthony S. The Dutch perinatal and neonatal registers 2005, Leids Universitair Medisch Cemtrum, Leiden.
49. Amelink-Verburg M., Verloove-Vanhorick S., Hakkenberg R., Veldhuijzen I., Bennebroek Gravenhorst J., Buitendijk S. Evaluation of 280 000 cases in Dutch midwifery practices: a descriptive study. BJOG 2007, 115:570-578.
50. Simmons V. Inconsistent advice and practice: part 3. British Journal of Midwifery 2003, 11(9):564-567.