This essay will evaluate the influence of environmental and philosophical factors on the normal progress of labour and the midwife’s role in relation to these. In this context the normal progress of labour is defined as the spontaneous onset and advancement of labour and includes the physiological and psychological environments that support effective labour resulting in the vaginal birth of the baby and afterbirth 1. When addressing the influence of environmental and philosophical factors on this normal development it is important to first address the natural interplay of hormones in this process. Labour and birth include neurobiological processes that facilitate the neuroendocrine, psychological, and physiological aspects of parturition 2,3. These systems include oxytocin mediated endogenous pain, fear, and stress relief, which influences the mothers ́ experiences, behaviour and physiology to birth and facilitates their transition to motherhood 2,3. When this process is affected by the adrenalin mediated fight-or-flight reflex, thus increasing stress and anxiety, there is an increase in maternal beta-endorphins to high levels that extend the labour process by influencing this easily modifiable oxytocin system, thereby decreasing the chances of normal birth 3. The presence of undesired persons, brisk procedures, separation from planned known support, bright environment, bothersome noises, time pressure, lack of privacy, practices that impinge upon the labouring woman’s body, and an emphasis on policy rather than individualised response to women’s needs and preferences all increase maternal adrenalin levels 3. Oxytocin is not released in the presence of high levels of adrenaline and it is how this stress, anxiety and fear can change a labouring woman's neurohormonal constitution 3,4. Understanding the profound importance of respecting and promoting this hormonal development is not enough to promote normal birth if the birthing environment does not support normal birth physiology 5,3. The birth environment is a multifaceted concept that includes the physical structures, sensory influences, birth companions, and care provider’s presence and philosophies, as well as psychological spaces of territory, safety, spirituality, and culture 5,6. Much research has been done around the physical birthplace design and its importance in safer maternity care and improved staff experiences 7,8. Aspects of design that have been found to support the natural hormonal cascade of birth include: having access to a bath and shower, private ensuite toilet facilities, adjustable ambient and natural light, and space to move freely with flexible room configurations to enable privacy and avoid feeling exposed 7,4. Setola et al. 7 and Aburas et al. 9 also discuss the use of feminine and nature based artwork and images to increase a sense of comfort, relaxation, and well-being, lower maternal heart rates, shorten labours, reduce epidural use, increase Apgar scores, and screen medical equipment. Jenkinson et al.’s 4 report also includes the positive impact of design features including soft floor furnishings, windows with views of natural landscapes, and access to nature and spaces for relevant traditional ceremonies. Maintaining oxytocin requires a woman to be in a calm, non-threatening and supportive environment that feels private, safe, familiar and undisturbed 3. This sense of security and intimacy is enhanced by being in a space that feels welcoming, comfortable and cosy and offers the choice to personalise 7. It also requires an atmosphere to foster distraction from pain to support this hormone orchestration 7. This form of ambient environment consistently demonstrates lower rates of neonatal admissions, labour augmentation, analgesia use, instrumental and caesarean section births, episiotomies, and active management of the placenta 10,7. Normal labour progress is also enhanced by physical support from labour companions and the birth environment should be accommodating them 7,11. It should be set up to support the midwives with features of friendliness, functionality, and freedom to do their job as guardians for a healthy, normal birth 12. Research shows that labour wards are mainly organised to reduce risks and treat complications and are thus dominated by care focussed on pathology which is important but also hinders and limits the midwife in their role to protect the women’s hormonal safety bubble 10. In this support role, midwives have a presupposition to protect this bubble from disruptions and establish a private, undisturbed atmosphere of familiarity, safety and autonomy 6,10. This can be initiated by establishing the family’s needs and preferences and encouraging them to personalise the space to be more homelike 6,10,13. This could include covering or moving the equipment that emphasises risk, and being recumbent, like the centrality of the bed, and encouraging active, upright positions 8,10. Upright and changing positions are better for the baby; they enhance normal labour and reduce the rate of instrumental birth, episiotomy, and shorten second stage of labour 14. The midwife can facilitate this calm space by adjusting the lighting, reducing unnecessary noise, offering music and aroma-therapy, and providing equipment like birth balls, stools, and other apparatus to promote a physiological labour 5,4. They may offer the stress relief of physical touch or massage, and reassurance that in turn mediates oxytocin release to reduce pain and fear 2,3. It is important to ensure that the birthing woman does not feel observed as it can impact on her sense of privacy 15,16. If the midwife looks relaxed and has a place to sit, the mother feels reassured of their presence and that there are no time constraints to the process 10. The neocortex can also be disrupted by language, therefore, remaining silent and unobtrusive and asking only necessary questions will help maintain a state of hormonal balance 16. Any necessary communication should be sensitive and effective during this intrapartum care 17. Other midwifery roles to maintain this conducive environment include ensuring the room, water, and towels for the baby are an appropriate temperature, providing food and water, partner support and preparation and checking of safety and medical equipment in the space 18. Complementing this care would be the inclusion of continuity of carer 6. The birth environment is also affected by the woman’s relationship with her midwife and the philosophy the midwife has 4. Often this philosophy is hard to differentiate from place of birth 19 but will be independently evaluated as an influence on the normal birth process. Birth philosophy can usually be broken into two main categories: the ‘medical/technocratic model’ and the ‘midwifery/holistic/social model’ 20. Grigg’s 20 medical model is doctor and pathology centred and includes ideas of the body and mind being separate, birth being a hospitalised medical condition, and technology, supervision and intervention being needed to ensure an outcome of a live mother and baby. This model views pain as a problem needing relief, therefore influencing the normal progress of labour, leading the birthing environment to become a ‘surveillance room’ 7. The midwifery model focusses on care being woman centred where midwives are the experts of the normal birth process and includes features of holistic, psychosocial, experiential, and emotional care guarded by observation and focusing not only on a healthy mother and baby but also on birth satisfaction 20. This philosophy of supporting and promoting the physiological process is grounded in the midwifery codes and competencies 11,21,22. It involves ‘working with pain’ as normal and positive 23 and focuses on creating a birthing room that is a ‘sanctum’ 7. The choices and philosophies of women and their partners are influenced by their maternity experiences and knowledge, personal, sociocultural, and political norms, but the major influence is their sense of safety and their belief regarding risk 19,24. There is often a struggle between a desire for a physiological birth, the increasing perceived risk technology can avoid, and the perceived positive experience that technology can offer 5. Women and midwives often choose a birthplace as a protection from or stimulus for their philosophy of childbirth 25. Most women choose to give birth in a hospital setting because it is a good match for what they believe 26, whereas woman with philosophies that seek physiological comfort measures and options such as waterbirth may choose to birth at home 27. Midwife partnerships that involve an individual shared birth philosophy exhibit more sustainability and individual satisfaction, and create fewer communication breakdowns due to tensions and subcultures within the workforce 15,28. This also benefits women who have chosen their midwife or place of birth according to their birth beliefs by ensuring they receive the same philosophical continuity of “care” no matter who attends them 29. Although philosophy of birth may guide principles for behaviour and choices around intrapartum care, it is important to remember that each woman’s birth is individual and care should remain woman-centred 19. This is especially relevant when working with cultural groups who are often stereotyped as having uniform beliefs 30. Women are all cultural beings with varying values and beliefs and yet they are all individuals with their own experiences influenced by class, gender, age, religion and sexual orientation 30. Ultimately women want to give birth to healthy babies in an environment that is clinically and psychologically safe and with care providers who support their philosophical beliefs 11. This essay has evaluated how these aspects of philosophy and environment have the potential to influence the normal progress of labour through the hormonal system. It has addressed how a midwife can respond to these factors in a culturally competent, collaborative and evidence-based way to assess, plan and provide safe psychological and clinical care. References
(1) American College of Nurse-Midwives [ACM]; Midwives Alliance of North America; National Association of Certified Professional Midwives [NMBA]. Supporting Healthy and Normal Physiologic Childbirth: A Consensus Statement by ACNM, MANA, and NACPM. J. Perinat. Educ. 2013, 22 (1), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1891/1058-1243.22.1.14. (2) Olza, I.; Uvnas-Moberg, K.; Ekström-Bergström, A.; Leahy-Warren, P.; Karlsdottir, S. I.; Nieuwenhuijze, M.; Villarmea, S.; Hadjigeorgiou, E.; Kazmierczak, M.; Spyridou, A.; Buckley, S. Birth as a Neuro-Psycho-Social Event: An Integrative Model of Maternal Experiences and Their Relation to Neurohormonal Events during Childbirth. PLOS ONE2020, 15 (7), e0230992. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230992. (3) Buckley, S. J. Hormonal Physiology of Childbearing: Evidence and Implications for Women, Babies, and Maternity Care. Childbirth Connect. Programs Natl. Partnersh. Women Fam. 2015. (4) Jenkinson, B.; Josey, N.; Kruski, S. BirthSpace: An Evidence-Based Guide to Birth Environment Design; Queensland Centre for Mothers & Babies, The University of Queensland: The University of Queensland, 2013. (5) Stark, M. A.; Remynse, M.; Zwelling, E. Importance of the Birth Environment to Support Physiologic Birth. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Neonatal Nurs. 2016, 45 (2), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2015.12.008. (6) Carlsson, I.-M.; Larsson, I.; Jormfeldt, H. Place and Space in Relation to Childbirth: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-Being 2020, 15 (sup1), 1667143. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2019.1667143. (7) Setola, N.; Naldi, E.; Cocina, G. G.; Eide, L. B.; Iannuzzi, L.; Daly, D. The Impact of the Physical Environment on Intrapartum Maternity Care: Identification of Eight Crucial Building Spaces. HERD Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2019, 12(4), 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586719826058. (8) Townsend, B.; Fenwick, J.; Thomson, V.; Foureur, M. The Birth Bed: A Qualitative Study on the Views of Midwives Regarding the Use of the Bed in the Birth Space. Women Birth 2016, 29 (1), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2015.08.009. (9) Aburas, R.; Pati, D.; Casanova, R.; Adams, N. G. The Influence of Nature Stimulus in Enhancing the Birth Experience. HERD Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2017, 10 (2), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586716665581. (10) Andrén, A.; Begley, C.; Dahlberg, H.; Berg, M. The Birthing Room and Its Influence on the Promotion of a Normal Physiological Childbirth - a Qualitative Interview Study with Midwives in Sweden. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-Being2021, 16 (1), 1939937. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2021.1939937. (11) World Health Organisation [WHO]. WHO Recommendations: Intrapartum Care for a Positive Childbirth Experience; World Health Organisation [WHO]: Geneva, 2018. (12) Hammond, A.; Homer, C. S. E.; Foureur, M. Friendliness, Functionality and Freedom: Design Characteristics That Support Midwifery Practice in the Hospital Setting. Midwifery 2017, 50, 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2017.03.025. (13) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]. Intrapartum Care for Healthy Women and Babies. 2017. (14) Zang, Y.; Lu, H.; Zhang, H.; Huang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Ren, L. Benefits and Risks of Upright Positions during the Second Stage of Labour: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2021, 114, 103812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103812. (15) Davis, D. L.; Homer, C. S. E. Birthplace as the Midwife’s Work Place: How Does Place of Birth Impact on Midwives? Women Birth 2016, 29 (5), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2016.02.004. (16) Odent, M. Odent M: Birth Territory: The Besieged Territory of the Obstetrician. In Fahy K, Foureur M, and Hastie C (Eds): Birth Territory and Midwifery Guardianship. Oxf. Elsevier 2008, 131. (17) Malesela, J. M. L. Midwives Perceptions: Birth Unit Environment and the Implementation of Best Intrapartum Care Practices. Women Birth 2021, 34 (1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2020.04.003. (18) Thorpe, J.; Anderson, J. Supporting Women in Labour and Birth - Midwifery Preparation for Practice. In Midwifery Preparation for Practice; Pairman, S., Tracy, S. K., Dahlen, H. G., Dixon, L., Eds.; 2019; pp 504–531. (19) Tracy, S.; Grigg, C. Birthplace and Birth Space - Midwifery Preparation for Practice. In Midwifery Preparation for Practice; Pairman, S., Tracy, S. K., Dahlen, H. G., Dixon, L., Eds.; 2019; pp 89–112. (20) Grigg, C.; Tracy, S. K.; Daellenbach, R.; Kensington, M.; Schmied, V. An Exploration of Influences on Women’s Birthplace Decision-Making in New Zealand: A Mixed Methods Prospective Cohort within the Evaluating Maternity Units Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14 (1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-210. (21) International Confederation of Midwives [ICM]. Essential Competencies for Midwifery Practice, 2019. (22) Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia [NMBA]. Midwife Standards for Practice, 2018. (23) Leap, N. Working with Pain in Labour. New Dig. 2010, No. 49, 22–26. (24) Downe, S.; Finlayson, K.; Oladapo, O.; Bonet, M.; Gülmezoglu, A. M. What Matters to Women during Childbirth: A Systematic Qualitative Review. PLOS ONE 2018, 13 (4), e0194906. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194906. (25) Dahlen, H. G.; Downe, S.; Jackson, M.; Priddis, H.; de Jonge, A.; Schmied, V. An Ethnographic Study of the Interaction between Philosophy of Childbirth and Place of Birth. Women Birth 2020, S1871519220303656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2020.10.008. (26) Declercq, E. R.; Sakala, C.; Corry, M. P.; Applebaum, S.; Herrlich, A. Report of the Third National U.S. Survey of Women’s Childbearing Experiences. 2013, 94. (27) Maude, R.; Caplice, S. Using Water for Labour and Birth - Midwifery Preparation for Practice. In Midwifery Preparation for Practice; Pairman, S., Tracy, S. K., Dahlen, H. G., Dixon, L., Eds.; 2019; pp 281–295. (28) Catling, C. J.; Reid, F.; Hunter, B. Australian Midwives’ Experiences of Their Workplace Culture. Women Birth2017, 30 (2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2016.10.001. (29) Gilkison, A.; Hewitt, L. Supporting Midwives, Supporting Each Other - Midwifery Preparation for Practice. In Midwifery Preparation for Practice; Pairman, S., Tracy, S. K., Dahlen, H. G., Dixon, L., Eds.; 2019; pp 281–295. (30) Hartz, D.; Sherwood, J. Midwives Working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women - Midwifery Preparation for Practice. In Midwifery Preparation for Practice; Pairman, S., Tracy, S. K., Dahlen, H. G., Dixon, L., Eds.; 2019; pp 158–174.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
JoWife, Mum, Doula, Student Midwife, Event Producer, Website Concocter, Cancer Transitioner, Dancer, Circler, Yogi, Organic, Suburban Hippie Archives
May 2022
Categories |