Introduction: There is an increase in women delivering ≥35 years of age. We analyzed the association between advanced maternal age and pregnancy outcomes in late‐ and postterm pregnancies.Material and methods: A national cohort study was performed on obstetrical low‐risk women using data from the Netherlands Perinatal Registry from 1999 to 2010. We included women ≥18 years of age with a singleton pregnancy at term. Women with a pregnancy complicated by congenital anomalies, hypertensive disorders or diabetes mellitus were excluded. Composite adverse perinatal outcome was defined as stillbirth, neonatal death, meconium aspiration syndrome, 5‐minute Apgar score 1000 mL.Results: We stratified the women into three age groups: 18‐34 (n = 1 321 366 [reference]); 35‐39 (n = 286 717) and ≥40 (n = 40 909). Composite adverse perinatal outcome occurred in 1.6% in women aged 18‐34, 1.7% in women aged 35‐39 (relative risk [RR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.03‐1.08) and 2.2% in women aged ≥40 (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.29‐1.47), with 5‐minute Apgar score 1000 mL as the factor contributing most to the outcome. In all age categories, the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes was higher for nulliparous than for multiparous women. The risk of adverse outcomes increased in both nulliparous and parous women with advancing gestational age. When adjusted for parity, onset of labor and gestational age, advanced maternal age is associated with an increase in both composite adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes.Conclusions: The risk of adverse pregnancy outcome increases with advancing maternal age. Women aged ≥40 have an increased risk of adverse perinatal and maternal outcome when pregnancy goes beyond 41 weeks.

Background: The risk of perinatal death and severe neonatal morbidity increases gradually after 41 weeks of pregnancy. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed if induction of labour (IOL) in uncomplicated pregnancies at 41 weeks will improve perinatal outcomes. We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) on this subject. Methods and findings: We searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO on February 21, 2020 for RCTs comparing IOL at 41 weeks with expectant management until 42 weeks in women with uncomplicated pregnancies. Individual participant data (IPD) were sought from eligible RCTs. Primary outcome was a composite of severe adverse perinatal outcomes: mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. Additional outcomes included neonatal admission, mode of delivery, perineal lacerations, and postpartum haemorrhage. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted for parity (nulliparous/multiparous), maternal age (<35/≥35 years), and body mass index (BMI) (<30/≥30). Aggregate data meta-analysis (MA) was performed to include data from RCTs for which IPD was not available. From 89 full-text articles, we identified three eligible RCTs (n = 5,161), and two contributed with IPD (n = 4,561). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding age, parity, BMI, and higher level of education. IOL resulted overall in a decrease of severe adverse perinatal outcome (0.4% [10/2,281] versus 1.0% [23/2,280]; relative risk [RR] 0.43 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21 to 0.91], p-value 0.027, risk difference [RD] −57/10,000 [95% CI −106/10,000 to −8/10,000], I² 0%). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 175 (95% CI 94 to 1,267). Perinatal deaths occurred in one (<0.1%) versus eight (0.4%) pregnancies (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.21 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.78], p-value 0.019, RD −31/10,000, [95% CI −56/10,000 to −5/10,000], I² 0%, NNT 326, [95% CI 177 to 2,014]) and admission to a neonatal care unit ≥4 days occurred in 1.1% (24/2,280) versus 1.9% (46/2,273), (RR 0.52 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.85], p-value 0.009, RD −97/10,000 [95% CI −169/10,000 to −26/10,000], I² 0%, NNT 103 [95% CI 59 to 385]). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery (10.5% versus 10.7%; RR 0.98, [95% CI 0.83 to 1.16], p-value 0.81) nor in other important perinatal, delivery, and maternal outcomes. MA on aggregate data showed similar results. Prespecified subgroup analyses for the primary outcome showed a significant difference in the treatment effect (p = 0.01 for interaction) for parity, but not for maternal age or BMI. The risk of severe adverse perinatal outcome was decreased for nulliparous women in the IOL group (0.3% [4/1,219] versus 1.6% [20/1,264]; RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07 to 0.60], p-value 0.004, RD −127/10,000, [95% CI −204/10,000 to −50/10,000], I² 0%, NNT 79 [95% CI 49 to 201]) but not for multiparous women (0.6% [6/1,219] versus 0.3% [3/1,264]; RR 1.59 [95% CI 0.15 to 17.30], p-value 0.35, RD 27/10,000, [95% CI −29/10,000 to 84/10,000], I² 55%). A limitation of this IPD-MA was the risk of overestimation of the effect on perinatal mortality due to early stopping of the largest included trial for safety reasons after the advice of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Furthermore, only two RCTs were eligible for the IPD-MA; thus, the possibility to assess severe adverse neonatal outcomes with few events was limited. Conclusions: In this study, we found that, overall, IOL at 41 weeks improved perinatal outcome compared with expectant management until 42 weeks without increasing the cesarean delivery rate. This benefit is shown only in nulliparous women, whereas for multiparous women, the incidence of mortality and morbidity was too low to demonstrate any effect. The magnitude of risk reduction of perinatal mortality remains uncertain. Women with pregnancies approaching 41 weeks should be informed on the risk differences according to parity so that they are able to make an informed choice for IOL at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks. Study Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020163174

Home births in high risk pregnancies and unassisted childbirth seem to be increasing in the Netherlands. Until now there were no qualitative data on women’s motivations for these choices in the Dutch maternity care system where integrated midwifery care and home birth are regular options in low risk pregnancies. We aimed to examine women’s motivations for birthing outside the system in order to provide medical professionals with insight and recommendations regarding their interactions with women who have birth wishes that go against medical advice. An exploratory qualitative research design with a constructivist approach and a grounded theory method were used. In-depth interviews were performed with 28 women on their motivations for going against medical advice in choosing a high risk childbirth setting. Open, axial and selective coding of the interview data was done in order to generate themes. A focus group was held for a member check of the findings. Four main themes were found: 1) Discrepancy in the definition of superior knowledge, 2) Need for autonomy and trust in the birth process, 3) Conflict during negotiation of the birth plan, and 4) Search for different care. One overarching theme emerged that covered all other themes: Fear. This theme refers both to the participants’ fear (of interventions and negative consequences of their choices) and to the providers’ fear (of a bad outcome). Where for some women it was a positive choice, for the majority of women in this study the choice for a home birth in a high risk pregnancy or an unassisted childbirth was a negative one. Negative choices were due to previous or current negative experiences with maternity care and/or conflict surrounding the birth plan. The main goal of working with women whose birthing choices do not align with medical advice should not be to coerce them into the framework of protocols and guidelines but to prevent negative choices. Recommendations for maternity caregivers can be summarized as: 1) Rethink risk discourse, 2) Respect a woman’s trust in the birth process and her autonomous choice, 3) Have a flexible approach to negotiating the birth plan using the model of shared decision making, 4) Be aware of alternative delivery care providers and other sources of information used by women, and 5) Provide maternity care without spreading or using fear.

To compare experienced continuity of care among women who received midwife-led versus obstetrician-led care. Secondly, to compare experienced continuity of care with a. experienced quality of care during labor and b. perception of labor. We conducted a questionnaire survey in a region in the Netherlands in 2014 among 790 women after they gave birth. To measure experienced continuity of care, the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire was used. Quality of care during labor was measured with the Pregnancy and Childbirth Questionnaire, and to measure perception of labor we used the Childbirth Perception Scale. Three hundred twenty five women consented to participate (41%). Of these, 187 women completed the relevant questions in the online questionnaire. 136 (73%) women were in midwife-led care at the onset of labor, 15 (8%) were in obstetrician-led care throughout pregnancy and 36 (19%) were referred to obstetrician-led care during pregnancy. Experienced personal and team continuity of care during pregnancy were higher for women in midwife-led care compared to those in obstetrician-led care at the onset of labor. Experienced continuity of care was moderately correlated with experienced quality of care although not significantly so in all subgroups. A weak negative correlation was found between experienced personal continuity of care by the midwife and perception of labor. This study suggests that experienced continuity of care depends on the care context and is significantly higher for women who are in midwife-led compared to obstetrician-led care during labor. It will be a challenge to maintain the high level of experienced continuity of care in an integrated maternity care system. Experienced continuity of care seems to be a distinctive concept that should not be confused with experienced quality of care or perception of labor and should be considered as a complementary aspect of quality of care.

Fathers have been increasingly involved in childbirth since 1990. Attendance at childbirth is considered to benefit fathers' health as well as that of their partner and children. However, childbirth is a life event that parents may experience differently. First-time fathers' experiences have been barely studied and may differ from those of fathers who have already had a child. In order to adapt support and care during childbirth to the needs of first-time fathers, a deeper insight must be gained into their experiences and needs during childbirth. A systematic review of qualitative studies was conducted using PubMed, Embase and CINAHL as well as the snowball method. Quality appraisal was performed and evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. A thematic best evidence synthesis was performed. Of 821 articles, eight qualitative studies and the qualitative data of one mixed methods study were included. amongst other feelings, fathers experience a lack of knowledge and a need to be better prepared. First-time fathers want to be more involved and need guidance, information and honest answers to help them fulfil a supportive role. Fathers disregard their own needs to focus on the needs of the mother. Meeting the baby for the first time changes the focus from the mother to the child, and fathers need time and privacy for this special moment. To adapt support and care during childbirth to the needs of first-time fathers, professionals must be aware of their needs. Professionals must realise the significant influence of their professional behaviour on first-time fathers' experiences. Care for first-time fathers should be formalised. Follow-up research must be conducted on integrating the preparation of first-time fathers into prenatal care. Education and training of professionals must be improved.

Anemia in pregnancy remains a major problem in Indonesia over the past decade. Early detection of anaemia in pregnancy is one of the components which is unsuccessfully implemented by nurse-midwives. This study aims to explore nurse-midwives’ experiences in managing pregnant women with anaemia in Public Health Centres. We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured face to face interviews from November 2011 to February 2012 with 23 nurse-midwives in five districts in Yogyakarta Special Province. Data analysis was thematic, using the constant comparison method, making comparison between participants and supported by ATLAS.ti software. Twelve nurse-midwives included in the interviews had less than or equal to 10 years’ working experience (junior nurse-midwives) and 11 nurse-midwives had more than 10 years’ working experience (senior nurse-midwives) in Public Health Centres. The senior nurse-midwives mostly worked as coordinators in Public Health Centres. Three main themes emerged: 1) the lack of competence and clinical skill; 2) cultural beliefs and low participation of family in antenatal care programme; 3) insufficient facilities and skilled support staff in Public Health Centres. The nurse-midwives realized that they need to improve their communication and clinical skills to manage pregnant women with anaemia. The husband and family involvement in antenatal care was constrained by the strength of cultural beliefs and lack of health information. Moreover, unfavourable work environment of the Public Health Centres made it difficult to apply antenatal care the pregnant womens’ need. The availability of facilities and skilled staffs in Public Health Centre as well as pregnant women’s husbands or family members contribute to the success of managing anaemia in pregnancy. Nurse-midwives and pregnant women need to be empowered to achieve the optimum result of anaemia management. We recommend a more comprehensive approach in managing pregnant women with anaemia, which synergizes the available resources and empowers nurse-midwives and pregnant women.