Bahareh Goodarzi

In this article, we conceptualize how Davis’ two concepts of uneven reproduction and obstetric racism—both rooted in the US context—are effectuated in the Netherlands. We consider uneven reproduction to consist of bio‐ and necropolitics, namely the management and regulation of a population's bodies, life and death. Through bio‐ and necropolitics, certain life is optimized by investments, and other life is negated by disinvestments in reproductive care in daily care work through obstetric racism. We develop an understanding of obstetric racism in the Netherlands by analyzing how it operates as a form of uneven reproduction, by providing theoretical depth to the concept of obstetric racism in the context of Europe. Based on data analysis from interviews and focus group conversations on obstetric violence with midwives, doulas, midwives‐in‐training, and mothers who gave birth within the last 10 years, we link the concept of uneven reproduction to daily practices of obstetric racism in the Netherlands. We find that obstetrics operates on the basis of linguistic racism and othering through exoticization, specifically for women racialized as Black through the racial stereotype of being “natural birthers,” while other marginalized racialized women are seen as “bad birthers.”

Studies indicate racial and ethnic inequities in pain assessment, management and treatment in maternal and newborn care. Namely, racially and ethnically ma

Background: Evidence suggests that transgender and gender‐expansive people are more likely to have suboptimal pregnancy outcomes compared with cisgender people. The aim of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the role of midwifery in these inequities by analyzing the pregnancy experiences of transgender and gender‐expansive people from a critical midwifery perspective.Methods: We conducted a systematic scoping review. We included 15 papers published since 2010 that reported on pregnancy experiences of people who had experienced gestational pregnancy at least once, and were transgender, nonbinary, or had other gender‐expansive identities.Results: Three themes emerged from our analysis: “Navigating identity during pregnancy,” “Experiences with mental health and wellbeing,” and “Encounters in the maternal and newborn care system.” Although across studies respondents reported positive experiences, both within healthcare and social settings, access to gender‐affirmative (midwifery) care and daily social realities were often shaped by trans‐negativity and transphobia.Discussion: To improve care outcomes of transgender and gender‐expansive people, it is necessary to counter anti‐trans ideologies by “fixing the knowledge” of midwifery curricula. This requires challenging dominant cultural norms and images around pregnancy, reconsidering the way in which the relationship among “sex,” “gender,” and “pregnancy” is understood and given meaning to in midwifery, and applying an intersectional lens to investigate the relationship between gender inequality and reproductive inequity of people with multiple, intersecting marginalized identities who may experience the accumulated impacts of racism, ageism, and classism. Future research should identify pedagogical frameworks that are suitable for guiding implementation efforts.

Background Studies indicate unwarranted variation in a wide range of neonatal care practices, contributing to preventable morbidity and mortality. Unwarranted variation is the result of complex interactions and multiple determinants. One of the determinants contributing to unwarranted variation in care may be variation in local hospital protocols. The purpose of this study was to examine variation in the content of obstetric and neonatal protocols for six common indications for neonatal referral to the pediatrician: large for gestational age/macrosomia, small for gestational age/fetal growth restriction, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, vacuum extraction, forceps extraction, and cesarean birth. Methods We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional study examining protocols for neonatal referral to the pediatrician in the obstetric and neonatal departments of all Dutch hospitals. Variation in protocols was analyzed between regions, between neonatal and obstetrics departments located in the same hospital, and within neonatal and obstetrics departments. Results There was considerable variation in protocols between regions, between neonatal and obstetrics departments, and within neonatal and obstetrics departments. The results of this study showed considerable variation in recommendations for type of referral, admission, screening/diagnostic tests, treatment, and discharge. Furthermore, results generally showed lower referral thresholds in neonatal departments compared with obstetric departments, and higher referral thresholds in the eastern region of the Netherlands. We also found variation in local hospital protocols, which could not be explained by population characteristics but which may be explained by varying recommendations in existing national and international guidelines and/or lack of adherence to these guidelines. Conclusions To reduce unwarranted variation in local protocols, evidence-based, multidisciplinary guidelines should be developed in the Netherlands. Further research addressing knowledge gaps is needed to inform these guidelines. Attention should be paid to the implementation of evidence, and only where evidence is lacking or inconclusive should agreements be based on multidisciplinary consensus. Where protocols deviate from evidence-based guidelines because of specific local circumstances, clearer, more transparent justifications should be made. Uniformity in guidance will offer clear standards for care evaluation and provide opportunities to reduce inappropriate care.

Background Maternal characteristics, such as parity and age, are increasingly considered indications for routine induction of labor of otherwise healthy women to prevent fetal and neonatal mortality. To fully balance the risks and benefits of induction of labor, we examined the association of additional relevant maternal characteristics and gestational age with fetal and neonatal mortality. Methods We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study among a healthy Dutch population consisting of all singleton pregnancies in midwife-led care after 37 weeks of gestation in the period 2000-2018. We examined the association of maternal ethnicity, age, parity, and socioeconomic status with fetal and neonatal mortality, stratified by gestational age. The association of single characteristics was examined using descriptive statistics, and univariable and multivariable logistics regression analyses. The associations of multiple characteristics were examined using inter-categorical analyses and using interaction terms in the multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results The results showed that ethnicity, age, parity, socioeconomic status, and gestational age did not act as single determinant of fetal and neonatal mortality. The probability of fetal and neonatal mortality differed among subgroups of women depending on which determinants were considered and the number of determinants included. Conclusions Decision-making about induction of labor to prevent fetal and neonatal mortality based on a single determinant may lead to overuse or underuse of IOL. A value-based health care strategy, addressing social inequity, and investing in better screening and diagnostic methods that employ an individualized and multi-determinant approach may be more effective at preventing fetal and neonatal mortality.

An effective system of risk selection is a global necessity to ensure women and children receive appropriate care at the right time and at the right place. To gain more insight into the existing models of risk selection (MRS), we explored the distribution of different MRS across regions in The Netherlands, and examined the relation between MRS and primary care midwives’ and obstetricians’ satisfaction with different MRS. We conducted a nationwide survey amongst all primary midwifery care practices and obstetrics departments. The questionnaire was completed by 312 (55%) primary midwifery care practices and 53 (72%) obstetrics departments. We identified three MRS, which were distributed differently across regions: (1) primary care midwives assess risk and initiate a consultation or transfer of care without discussing this first with the obstetrician, (2) primary care midwives assess risk and make decisions about consultation or transfer of care collaboratively with obstetricians, and (3) models with other characteristics. Across these MRS, variations exist in several aspects, including the routine involvement of the obstetrician in the care of healthy pregnant women. We found no significant difference between MRS and professionals’ level of satisfaction. An evidence- and value-based approach is recommended in the pursuit of the optimal organization of risk selection. This requires further research into associations between MRS and maternal and perinatal outcomes, professional payment methods, resource allocation, and the experiences of women and care professionals.

Globally, millions of women and their children suffer due to preventable morbidity and mortality, associated with both underuse and overuse of maternal and newborn care. An effective system of risk selection that differentiates between what care should be provided and who should provide it is a global necessity to ensure women and children receive appropriate care, at the right place and the right time. Poor conceptualization of risk selection impedes evaluation and comparison of models of risk selection across various settings, which is necessary to improve maternal and newborn care. We conducted a scoping review to enhance the understanding of risk selection in maternal and newborn care. We included 210 papers, published over the past four decades, originating from 24 countries. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified three main dimensions of risk selection: (1) risk selection as an organisational measure to optimally align women’s and children’s needs and resources, (2) risk selection as a practice to detect and assess risk and to make decisions about the delivery of care, and (3) risk selection as a tool to ensure safe care. We found that these three dimensions have three themes in common: risk selection (1) is viewed as both requiring and providing regulation, (2) has a provider centred focus and (3) aims to avoid underuse of care. Due to the methodological challenges of contextual diversity, the concept of risk selection needs clear indicators that capture the complexity of care to make cross-setting evaluation and comparison of risk selection possible. Moreover, a comprehensive understanding of risk selection needs to consider access disparity, women’s needs, and unnecessary medicalization.

Midwives’ position in maternal and newborn care (MNC) in the Netherlands is unique: unlike many other countries, they have retained the authority over risk assessment and referral. We studied why and how midwives formally gained their position as gatekeepers, a role formally granted in 1987 by the Study Group for the Revision of the Kloosterman List (SGKL), a group of representatives from all professions and organisations involved in Dutch MNC. We analysed the minutes of the SGKL’s meetings and conducted interviews with eight key-informants who were involved in the SGKL’s decision process. We used theories of professional boundary work and cultural theories of risk to analyse the negotiations regarding the authority over risk assessment and referral in MNC that occurred between the representatives of midwives, general practitioners, and obstetricians in the SGKL. Our study offers new insights into professional boundary demarcation and the contest for control of risk management that occur at the political level of MNC. We show that beliefs regarding risks associated with childbirth and concern with the protection of professional interests can differ not only between but also within professions that seek to police and extend their boundaries. Negotiations are shaped by a dynamic interaction between these beliefs and interests, creating the possibility for otherwise unexpected transprofessional coalitions and redefining boundaries in unexpected ways. Our findings offer the possibility to view disputes in MNC as occurring between beliefs and interests, instead of between professional groups. These insights can reframe policy discussions in MNC and point to the need for further analysis of the boundary work that occurs in political and regulatory arenas.