Corine J Verhoeven

Prof. Dr. Corine J Verhoeven

Amsterdam UMC, department of Midwifery Science, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
+2
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 January 2019 in Systematic Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CVCorine J Verhoeven
Corine J Verhoeven
DSDale Spence
Dale Spence
VNViola Nyman
Viola Nyman
RORené H. J. Otten
René H. J. Otten
MHMaria Healy
Maria Healy
Midwives’ practices during the second stage of labour vary nationally and internationally. We aim to retrieve evidence that supports high-quality intrapartum care by conducting a systematic review of the literature. Electronic bibliographic databases including PubMed, EMBASE.com , Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care Database (through MIDIRS), and The Cochrane Library will be searched to identify studies that meet the inclusion criteria. No language or publication date constraints will be applied. Articles that pass the two-stage screening process will then be assessed for risk of bias and have their reference lists hand searched. A midwife’s practice can be influenced by education and cultural practices but ultimately it should be informed by up-to-date research evidence. By analysing and synthesising the results of the studies, this systematic review will provide valuable insight into high-quality evidence-based midwifery care, which can inform practice, education and future research. PROSPERO CRD42018088300

27 October 2013 in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CVCorine J Verhoeven
Corine J Verhoeven
BOB. C. Opmeer
B. C. Opmeer
SOS. G. Oei
S. G. Oei
VLV. Latour
V. Latour
JPJ. A. M. van der Post
J. A. M. van der Post
BMB. W. J. Mol
B. W. J. Mol

8 January 2018 in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HPHilde Perdok
Hilde Perdok
CVCorine J Verhoeven
Corine J Verhoeven
JDJeroen Van Dillen
Jeroen Van Dillen
TSTjerk Jan Schuitmaker
Tjerk Jan Schuitmaker
KHKarla Hoogendoorn
Karla Hoogendoorn
AJAnk de Jonge
Ank de Jonge
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.

26 July 2016 in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HPHilde Perdok
Hilde Perdok
SJSuze Jans
Suze Jans
CVCorine J Verhoeven
Corine J Verhoeven
LHLidewij Henneman
Lidewij Henneman
TWTherese Wiegers
Therese Wiegers
AJAnk de Jonge
Ank de Jonge
This study aims to give insight into the opinions of maternity care professionals and other stakeholders on the integration of midwife-led care and obstetrician-led care and on the facilitating and inhibiting factors for integrating maternity care. Qualitative study using interviews and focus groups from November 2012 to February 2013 in the Netherlands. Seventeen purposively selected stakeholder representatives participated in individual semi-structured interviews and 21 in focus groups. One face-to-face focus group included a combined group of midwives, obstetricians and a paediatrician involved in maternity care. Two online focus groups included a group of primary care midwives and a group of clinical midwives respectively. Thematic analysis was performed using Atlas.ti. Two researchers independently coded the interview and focus group transcripts by means of a mind map and themes and relations between them were described. Three main themes were identified with regard to integrating maternity care: client-centred care, continuity of care and task shifting between professionals. Opinions differed regarding the optimal maternity care organisation model. Participants considered the current payment structure an inhibiting factor, whereas a new modified payment structure based on the actual amount of work performed was seen as a facilitating factor. Both midwives and obstetricians indicated that they were afraid to loose autonomy. An integrated maternity care system may improve client-centred care, provide continuity of care for women during labour and birth and include a shift of responsibilities between health care providers. However, differences of opinion among professionals and other stakeholders with regard to the optimal maternity care organisation model may complicate the implementation of integrated care. Important factors for a successful implementation of integrated maternity care are an appropriate payment structure and maintenance of the autonomy of professionals.

1 October 2020 in Patient Education and Counseling
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JKJoyce M. Kors
Joyce M. Kors
EPEmma Paternotte
Emma Paternotte
LMLinda Martin
Linda Martin
CVCorine J Verhoeven
Corine J Verhoeven
LSLinda Schoonmade
Linda Schoonmade
RKRashmi Kusurkar
Rashmi Kusurkar
Gaining insight into contextual factors and mechanisms supporting or hindering autonomy supportive consultation and into outcomes of such consultations. We conducted a systematic review using the realist synthesis procedure according to RAMESES guideline. A search was performed in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and Cinahl from inception to March 2019 using the search terms: 'autonomy' AND 'support' AND 'consultation' OR 'communication' AND 'intervention'. The review process including paper selection, quality assessment, full text reading for data-extraction was conducted by two researchers independently. Of 2792 articles, 18 met our inclusion criteria. Contextual factors influencing an autonomy supportive consultation were: work organization and the attitude of professionals. An overarching supporting mechanism for AS was relationship building. In addition, each phase of the decision-making process seems to need supporting mechanisms fulfilling patients 'specific psychological needs in that phase. The outcome of AS is higher levels of patient well-being. Autonomy supportive consultation works under various contexts coupled with mechanisms that give rise to favourable-outcomes, of which relationship building, taking time and exploring patients' needs seem the most important. The results of our review facilitate professionals to reflect on their autonomy supportive consultation skills, which could improve their autonomy supportive behaviour.

1 June 2018 in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ASA. E. Seijmonsbergen-Schermers
A. E. Seijmonsbergen-Schermers
DZD. C. Zondag
D. C. Zondag
MNMarianne Nieuwenhuijze
Marianne Nieuwenhuijze
TAT. Van Den Akker
T. Van Den Akker
CVCorine J Verhoeven
Corine J Verhoeven
AJA. De Jonge
A. De Jonge
Although interventions in childbirth are important in order to prevent neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, non-indicated use may cause avoidable harm. Regional variations in intervention rates, which cannot be explained by maternal characteristics, may indicate over- and underuse. The aim of this study is to explore regional variations in childbirth interventions in the Netherlands and their associations with interventions and adverse outcomes, controlled for maternal characteristics. Childbirth intervention rates were compared between twelve Dutch regions, using data from the national perinatal birth register for 2010–2013. All single childbirths from 37 weeks’ gestation onwards were included. Primary outcomes were induction and augmentation of labour, pain medication, instrumental birth, caesarean section (prelabour, intrapartum) and paediatric involvement. Secondary outcomes were adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for maternal characteristics. Associations were expressed in Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients. Most variation was found for type of pain medication and paediatric involvement. Epidural analgesia rates varied from between 12 and 38% (nulliparous) and from between 5 and 14% (multiparous women). These rates were negatively correlated with rates of other pharmacological pain relief, which varied from between 15 and 43% (nulliparous) and from between 10 and 27% (multiparous). Rates of paediatric involvement varied from between 37 and 60% (nulliparous) and from between 26 and 43% (multiparous). For instrumental vaginal births, rates varied from between 16 and 19% (nulliparous) and from between 3 and 4% (multiparous). For intrapartum caesarean section, the variation was 13–15% and 5–6%, respectively. A positive correlation was found between intervention rates in midwife-led and obstetrician-led care at the onset of labour within the same region. Adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes were not lower in regions with higher intervention rates. Higher augmentation of labour rates correlated with higher rates of severe postpartum haemorrhage. Most variation was found for type of pain medication and paediatric involvement, and least for instrumental vaginal births and intrapartum caesarean sections. Care providers and policy makers should critically audit remarkable variations, since these may be unwarranted. Limited variation for some interventions may indicate consensus for their use. Further research should focus on variations in evidence-based interventions and indications for the use of interventions in childbirth.