ObjectiveTo assess maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with increasing body mass index (BMI) and interpregnancy BMI changes in an Australian obstetric population.MethodsA retrospective cohort study from 2008 to 2013 was undertaken. BMI for 14 875 women was categorised as follows: underweight (≤18 kg/m2); normal weight (19–24 kg/m2); overweight (25–29 kg/m2); obese class I (30–34 kg/m2); obese class II (35–39 kg/m2) and obese class III (40+ kg/m2). BMI categories and maternal, neonatal and birthing outcomes were examined using logistic regression. Interpregnancy change in BMI and the risk of adverse outcomes in the subsequent pregnancy were also examined.ResultsWithin this cohort, 751 (5.1%) women were underweight, 7431 (50.0%) had normal BMI, 3748 (25.1%) were overweight, 1598 (10.8%) were obese class I, 737 (5.0%) were obese class II and 592 (4.0%) were obese class III. In bivariate adjusted models, obese women were at an increased risk of caesarean section, gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and neonatal morbidities including macrosomia, large for gestational age (LGA), hypoglycaemia, low 5 min Apgar score and respiratory distress. Multiparous women who experienced an interpregnancy increase of ≥3 BMI units had a higher adjusted OR (AOR) (CI) of the following adverse outcomes in their subsequent pregnancy: low 5-min Apgar score 3.242 (1.557 to 7.118); gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) 3.258 (1.129 to 10.665) and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 3.922 (1.243 to 14.760). These women were more likely to give birth vaginally 2.030 (1.417 to 2.913). Conversely, women whose parity changed from 0 to 1 and who experienced an interpregnancy increase of ≥3 BMI units had a higher AOR (CI) of caesarean section in their second pregnancy 1.806 (1.139 to 2.862).ConclusionsWomen who are overweight or obese have a significantly increased risk of various adverse outcomes. Interpregnancy weight gain, regardless of parity and baseline BMI, also increases various adverse outcomes. Effective weight management strategies are needed.
Given the excellent outcomes of midwifery led care, we should focus on how we can facilitate the work of midwives in all settings. This study suggests that the culture of the birthplace rather than the physicality is the highest priority.
Recent advances in cross-disciplinary studies linking architecture and neuroscience have revealed that much of the built environment for health-care delivery may actually impair rather than improve health outcomes by disrupting effective communication and increasing patient and staff stress. This is also true for maternity care provision, where it is suggested that the design of the environment can also impact on the experiences and outcomes for birthing women. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of a conceptual model based on literature and understandings of design, communication, stress and model of care. The model explores potential relationships among a set of key variables that need to be considered by researchers wishing to determine the characteristics of optimal birth environments in relation to birth outcomes for women and infants. The conceptual model hypothesises that safe satisfying birth is reliant on the level of stress experienced by a woman and the staff around her, stress influences the quality of communication with women and between staff, and this process is mediated by the design of the birth unit and model of care. The conceptual model is offered as a starting point for researchers who have an appreciation of the complexity of birth and the ability to bring together colleagues from a range of disciplines to explore the pre-requisites for safe and effective maternity care in new ways.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.