Multi-country studies assessing the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID-19 pandemic, as defined by WHO Standards, are lacking. Women who gave birth in 12 countries of the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020 - March 15, 2021 answered an online questionnaire, including 40 WHO Standard-based Quality Measures. 21,027 mothers were included in the analysis. Among those who experienced labour (N=18,063), 41·8% (26·1%- 63·5%) experienced difficulties in accessing antenatal care, 62% (12·6%-99·0%) were not allowed a companion of choice, 31·1% (16·5%-56·9%) received inadequate breastfeeding support, 34·4% (5·2%-64·8%) reported that health workers were not always using protective personal equipment, and 31·8% (17·8%-53·1%) rated the health workers’ number as “insufficient”. Episiotomy was performed in 20·1% (6·1%-66·0%) of spontaneous vaginal births and fundal pressure applied in 41·2% (11·5% -100%) of instrumental vaginal births. In addition, 23·9% women felt they were not treated with dignity (12·8%-59·8%), 12·5% (7·0%-23·4%) suffered abuse, and 2·4% (0·1%-26·2%) made informal payments. Most findings were significantly worse among women with prelabour caesarean birth (N=2,964). Multivariate analyses confirmed significant differences among countries, with Croatia, Romania, Serbia showing significant lower QMNC Indexes and Luxemburg showing a significantly higher QMNC Index than the total sample. Younger women and those with operative births also reported significantly lower QMNC Indexes. Mothers reports revealed large inequities in QMNC across countries of the WHO European Region. Quality improvement initiatives to reduce these inequities and promote evidence-based, patient-centred respectful care for all mothers and newborns during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond are urgently needed. The study was financially supported by the Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04847336

Objective: To describe the perception of quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) around the time of childbirth among migrant and nonmigrant women in Europe.Methods: Women who gave birth at a health facility in 11 countries of the WHO European Region from March 2020 to July 2021 were invited to answer an online questionnaire including demographics and childbirth experience. Data were analyzed and compared for 1781 migrant and 20 653 nonmigrant women.Results: Migrant women who experienced labor perceived slightly more difficulties in attending routine antenatal visits (41.2% vs 39.4%; P = 0.001), more barriers in accessing facilities (32.9% vs 29.9%; P = 0.001), lack of timely care (14.7% vs 13.0%; P = 0.025), inadequate room comfort and equipment (9.2% vs 8.5%; P = 0.004), inadequate number of women per room (9.4% vs 8.6%; P = 0.039), being prevented from staying with their baby as they wished (7.8% vs 6.9%; P = 0.011), or suffering abuse (14.5% vs 12.7%; P = 0.022) compared with nonmigrant women. For women who had a prelabor cesarean, migrant women were more likely not to receive pain relief after birth (16.8% vs.13.5%; P = 0.039) and less likely to provide informal payment (1.8% vs 4.4%; P = 0.005) compared with nonmigrant women. Overall, the QMNC index was not significantly different for migrant compared with nonmigrant women.Conclusion: Gaps in overall QMNC were reported by both migrant and nonmigrant women, with improvements to healthcare necessary for all.

Objective: To investigate potential associations between individual and country‐level factors and medicalization of birth in 15 European countries during the COVID‐19 pandemic.Methods: Online anonymous survey of women who gave birth in 2020–2021. Multivariable multilevel logistic regression models estimating associations between indicators of medicalization (cesarean, instrumental vaginal birth [IVB], episiotomy, fundal pressure) and proxy variables related to care culture and contextual factors at the individual and country level.Results: Among 27 173 women, 24.4% (n = 6650) had a cesarean and 8.8% (n = 2380) an IVB. Among women with IVB, 41.9% (n = 998) reported receiving fundal pressure. Among women with spontaneous vaginal births, 22.3% (n = 4048) had an episiotomy. Less respectful care, as perceived by the women, was associated with higher levels of medicalization. For example, women who reported having a cesarean, IVB, or episiotomy reported not feeling treated with dignity more frequently than women who did not have those interventions (odds ratio [OR] 1.37; OR 1.61; OR 1.51, respectively; all: P < 0.001). Country‐level variables contributed to explaining some of the variance between countries.Conclusion: We recommend a greater emphasis in health policies on promotion of respectful and patient‐centered care approaches to birth to enhance women's experiences of care, and the development of a European‐level indicator to monitor medicalization of reproductive care.

Objective: To explore the quality of maternal and newborn care (QMNC) during the COVID‐19 pandemic by facility type among 16 European countries, comparing rates of instrumental vaginal birth and cesarean.Methods: Women who gave birth in the WHO European Region from March 1, 2020, to February 7, 2022, answered a validated online questionnaire. Rates of instrumental birth, instrumental vaginal birth, and cesarean, and a QMNC index were calculated for births in public versus private facilities.Results: Responses from 25 206 participants were analyzed. Women giving birth in private compared with public facilities reported significantly more frequent total cesarean (32.5% vs 19.0%; aOR 1.70; 95% CI 1.52–1.90), elective cesarean (17.3% vs 7.8%; aOR 1.90; 95% CI 1.65–2.19), and emergency cesarean before labor (7.4% vs 3.9%; aOR 1.39; 95% CI 1.14–1.70) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons), with analyses by country confirming these results. QMNC index results were heterogeneous across countries and regions in the same country and were largely affected by geographical distribution of regions rather than by type of facility alone.Conclusion: The study confirms that births in private facilities have higher odds of cesarean. It also suggests that QMNC should be closely monitored in all facilities to achieve high‐quality care, independent of facility type or geographical distribution.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04847336

In order to maximize profits from sales of breastmilk substitutes, manufacturers use a whole gamut of strategies to interfere with the effective implementation of policies that protect, promote, and support breastfeeding (e.g., the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes with its subsequent World Health Assembly resolutions and the Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding ). Their strategies create, among other problems, personal and institutional conflicts of interest. Effective Conflict of Interest policies are therefore needed for ensuring that governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and health professionals can protect their independence, integrity, and credibility in order to work in the best interests of children. Conflicts of interest are discussed by Dr Lida Lhotska and Dr Judith Richter, who have been actively involved in these issues internationally. Lida Lhotska holds a BSc in Biology and a PhD in Anthropology. Her international work spans over 25 years. She headed the Infant Feeding and Care team for UNICEF and subsequently joined the IBFAN-Geneva Infant Feeding Association team, always focusing on advancing the protection of breastfeeding through legal and other policy measures. Judith Richter has a multidisciplinary background combining knowledge in the humanities with health sciences (PhD Social Sciences; MA Development Studies; MSc Pharmaceutical Sciences). Her work as a freelance researcher for United Nations agencies, governments, and civil society organizations and networks has centered on safeguarding their capacity to hold transnational corporations accountable. In her interview, Judith Richter explains why conflict of interest regulation matters to health professionals working in the field of lactation. (MA = Maryse Arendt; LL = Lida Lhotska; JR = Judith Richter)