This study shows that most participants support more integration of care during labor. The lack of consensus among Dutch maternity care professionals with regard to the distribution of responsibilities and tasks for "moderate risk" indications is a challenge. Further studies should explore how to deal with differences in opinions among professionals when integrating maternity care systems.

BackgroundJob satisfaction is generally considered to be an important element of work quality and workplace relations. Little is known about levels of job satisfaction among hospital and primary-care midwives in the Netherlands. Proposed changes to the maternity care system in the Netherlands should consider how the working conditions of midwives affect their job satisfaction.AimWe aimed to measure and compare job satisfaction among hospital and primary-care midwives in the Netherlands.MethodsOnline survey of all practising midwives in the Netherlands using a validated measure of job satisfaction (the Leiden Quality of Work Questionnaire) to analyze the attitudes of hospital and primary-care midwives about their work. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to assess differences between the two groups.ResultsApproximately one in six of all practising midwives in the Netherlands responded to our survey (hospital midwives n = 103, primary-care midwives n = 405). All midwives in our survey were satisfied with their work (n = 508). However, significant differences emerged between hospital and primary-care midwives in terms of what was most important to them in relation to their job satisfaction. For hospital midwives, the most significant domains were: working hours per week, workplace agreements, and total years of experience. For primary-care midwives, social support at work, work demands, job autonomy, and the influence of work on their private life were most significant.ConclusionAlthough midwives were generally satisfied, differences emerged in the key predictors of job satisfaction between hospital and primary-care midwives. These differences could be of importance when planning workforce needs and should be taken into consideration by policymakers in the Netherlands and elsewhere when planning new models of care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4454-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Carrier screening for hemoglobinopathies (HbPs; sickle cell disease and thalassemia) aims to facilitate autonomous reproductive decision-making. In the absence of a Dutch national HbP carrier screening program, some primary care midwives offer screening on an ad hoc basis. This qualitative descriptive study explores how pregnant women perceive an offer of HbP carrier screening by their midwife. Semi-structured interviews (n = 26) were conducted with pregnant women at risk of being a HbP carrier, and whom were offered screening at their booking appointment in one of two midwifery practices in Amsterdam. The results showed that half of the respondents were familiar with HbPs. Generally, women perceived the offer of HbP carrier screening as positive, and most women (n = 19) accepted screening. Seven declined, of whom two already knew their carrier status. Important reasons to accept screening were to obtain knowledge about their own carrier status and health of their unborn child, and the ease of the procedure. A multistep process of decision-making was observed, as many women did not give follow-up testing (e.g. partner, invasive diagnostics) much consideration while deciding on accepting or declining HbP screening. Women experienced information overload, and preferred receiving the information at a different moment (e.g. before the intake by a leaflet, or preconceptionally). In conclusion, while prenatal HbP carrier screening is perceived as positive, informed decision-making seems to be suboptimal, and both the content and timing of the information provided needs improvement.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10897-017-0159-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThis 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.MethodsQualitative 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.ResultsThree 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.ConclusionsAn 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.

BackgroundAnemia 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsTwelve 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Objectives. In 2007 neonatal screening (NNS) was expanded to include screening for sickle cell disease (SCD) and beta-thalassaemia. Up until that year no formal recommendations for haemoglobinopathy (carrier) screening existed in the Netherlands. Although it has been subject to debate in the past, preconceptional and prenatal haemoglobinopathy carrier screening are not part of routine healthcare in the Netherlands. This study aimed to explore the decision-making process of the past: why was the introduction of a screening programme for haemoglobinopathy considered to be untimely, and did ethnicity play a role given the history in other countries surrounding the introduction of haemoglobinopathy screening?Design. A witness seminar was organised, inviting key figures to discuss the decision-making process concerning haemoglobinopathy screening in the Netherlands, thereby adding new perspectives on past events. The transcript was content-analysed.Results. The subject of haemoglobinopathy screening first appeared in the 1970s. As opposed to a long history of neglect of African-American health in the United States, the heritage of the Second World War influenced the decision-making process in the Netherlands. As a consequence, registration of ethnicity surfaced as an impeding factor. However, overall, official Dutch screening policy was restrained regarding reproductive issues caused by fear of eugenics. In the 1990s haemoglobinopathy screening was found to be ‘not opportune’ due to low prevalence, lack of knowledge and fear of stigmatisation. Currently the registration of ethnicity remains on the political agenda, but still proves to be a sensitive subject.Discussion. Carrier screening in general never appeared high on the policy agenda. Registration of ethnicity remains sensitive caused by the current political climate. Complexities related to carrier screening are a challenge in Dutch healthcare. Whether carrier screening will be considered a valuable complementary strategy in the Netherlands, depends partly on participation of representatives of high-risk groups in policy making.

With the introduction of screening programmes for haemoglobinopathies (HbP), more women will be aware of their HbP status. The genetic risk for women who are carriers of HbP is well known. However, midwives and obstetricians need to know whether there are other risks involved in the pregnancies of women who are carriers of HbP. The objective of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that being a carrier of HbP has no consequences for the health of pregnant women and the outcome of their pregnancies. A systematic search was carried out until August 2008 in the Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL databases. All references were inspected to identify further studies. The authors of key publications were contacted for any unpublished research. Selection of studies was made on the basis of the following criteria: Cohort and case-control studies, pregnant women with a singleton pregnancy, exposure: HbAS or thalassaemia minor and the following outcomes: urinary tract infection (UTI), anaemia, (pre-)eclampsia, gestational diabetes, premature labour, low birth weight, intrauterine growth retardation, miscarriage, neonatal death, low Apgar score, neural tube defects. Quality assessment and data extraction were carried out by two researchers. A total of 780 subjects were identified of which nine were included in the study. A protective effect of sickle cell trait was found for premature birth, low Apgar score and perinatal mortality rate. No significant effect was found for low birth weight, growth retardation, UTI or high blood pressure. The risk of anaemia and bacteriuria was increased. In conclusion, the risks amongst pregnant HbP carriers are low. Midwives and obstetricians need to be aware of the risk of anaemia and UTI.

Introduction In response to a relatively high perinatal mortality rate in The Netherlands, the Dutch Health Ministry recommended changes to maternity care, opening a pathway toward more integrated woman‐centered services. Because of its potential to positively influence risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes, CenteringPregnancy (CP) group prenatal care was implemented. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study (n = 2318) and survey on women's experiences (n = 222) in eight primary care midwifery practices to investigate outcome differences between CP and traditional individual prenatal care. Data from the period 2011‐2013 were analyzed. Results Primiparous and multiparous CP women attended more prenatal care visits compared with women who received individual care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.23 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18‐1.29] and 1.29 [1.21‐1.36]). Fewer primiparous CP women used pain relief during labor (0.56 [0.43‐0.73]), and they initiated breastfeeding more often (1.74 [1.15‐2.62]). Women participating in CP were more likely to feel that their wishes with respect to medication use (69.1% vs 54.4%, P = 0.039), physical activities (72.8% vs 52.5%, P = 0.008), and relaxation exercises (67.9% vs 35.6%, P ≤ 0.001) were listened to by care providers. They also felt more supported to actively participate in their care (89.6% vs 68.5%, P = 0.001) and felt more able to voice opinions about care (92.7% vs 73.9%, P = 0.002). Conclusions The CP model is a good approach aligning with Dutch policy calling for women‐centered care and responding to the needs of pregnant women. This study supports CP scale‐up in The Netherlands and adds to the pool of international knowledge about CP implementation.