Kathrin Stoll

Objective: To summarise administrative and interview data relevant to the care of pregnant people with high BMI in rural British Columbia. Methods: In this mixed methods analysis, we report administrative health data linked to maternal postal codes, to determine variations in rates of local births across BMI groups ( n = 3247) and to examine associations between BMI and adverse maternal–newborn outcomes ( n = 2527). Qualitative data from 169 healthcare providers and administrators at rural hospitals in BC were analyzed to understand rural providers’ experiences when caring for pregnant women with high BMI. Two clinical guidelines that were developed to improve care for women with obesity are presented, as examples of rural CQI initiatives. Results: The proportion of local births decreased as BMI increased: 72.7% of those with normal BMI gave birth at rural hospitals compared to 34.9% with a BMI ≥ 40. For underweight, overweight, and obese women who gave birth at rural hospitals, the incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes was higher (IRR 1.85; 95% CI: 0.49–3.76, IRR = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.74–1.80; IRR = 1.81; 95% CI: 0.87–3.35), compared to those in the normal BMI range, but the associations were not significant. Healthcare providers also described challenges with maintaining quality and safety when caring for patients with high BMI in a low‐volume rural setting and noted that a specialist ‘cookie cutter’ approach to managing and transferring people with high BMI was not practical in rural communities. Discussion and Conclusion: Strategies that improve the care of pregnant women with high BMI must take into account the social risks incurred by birthers and families who leave the community alongside the clinical risks of remaining, with attention also given to the impact of adverse outcomes on health care providers. These processes must be underscored by engagement from regional referral specialists to ensure local providers are clinically supported and that there are efficient transfer pathways to higher levels of care should this be needed.

To date, the discourse on bodily autonomy has been narrowly focused on contraception and abortion and needs to be expanded to include experiences of agency during pregnancy and birth. Disrespect and mistreatment are widely reported in low resource countries but very little is known about experiences of perinatal care in high resource countries and how to improve care for minoritized populations. Methods: We examine experiences of autonomy in decision-making during pregnancy among people who were pregnant in Canada between 2009 and 2022, using a large national dataset of patient-reported experiences and outcomes that were collected via a cross-sectional online survey. We measured autonomy with a globally validated patient-reported experience measure, the My Autonomy in Decision-Making (MADM) scale. To assess variations in autonomy by identity or life circumstances, we conducted multivariable regression analyses, controlling for pregnancy year, repeat observations, and place of residence and stratifying by model of care (physician or midwife-led). In a separate analysis, we tested contextual factors such as onset of prenatal care, length of appointments, and model of care (physician-led or midwife-led) that might reduce disparities in autonomy among minoritized childbearing people. Findings: Diverse participants (n=5389) reported on 7049 interactions with healthcare providers. In the adjusted models, autonomy scores were significantly lower among those with high school education or less (physician-led care: IRR=0.86, 95 % CI: 0.82-0.92; midwife-led care: IRR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.98) and newcomers to Canada (physician-led care: IRR=0.97, 95 % CI: 0.93-0.99). Scores were higher among pregnant people with majorized identities and circumstances, i.e. those who reported low discrimination (physician-led care: IRR=1.21, 95 % CI: 1.15-1.26; midwife-led care: IRR=1.06, 95% CI: 1.02-1.11), no disability (physician-led care: IRR=1.07, 95 % CI: 1.02-1.13; midwife-led care: IRR=1.04, 95% CI: 1.00-1.09), no need for social services (physician-led care: IRR=1.11, 95 % CI: 1.04-1.19; midwife-led care: IRR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.06-1.21), identified as heterosexual (physician-led care: IRR=1.10, 95 % CI: 1.06-1.15; midwife-led care: IRR=1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.06), Cis gender (midwife-led care: IRR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.01-1.16), and had sufficient income to meet financial obligations (physician-led care: IRR=1.18, 95 % CI: 1.11-1.24), compared to the reference groups. Several modifiable factors were linked to higher autonomy, including early entry into prenatal care, sufficient time during prenatal appointments, and midwife-led care. Midwife led care was the only contextual factor that was associated with significant increases in autonomy scores for minoritized people. Conclusions: Self-determination, including the ability to lead decisions during pregnancy, birth and the postpartum period, is a reproductive right, yet minoritized communities reported significant loss of autonomy. Differences persisted across models of care, pointing to structural inequities in patient-led decision-making during pregnancy.

Background: This survey of rural nurses’ experiences is part of a program evaluation of the Rural Surgical and Obstetrical Networks (RSON), a five-year initiative (2018–2023) to strengthen and stabilize rural hospitals in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Purpose: Our aim was to measure changes in professional and work-related quality-of-life of rural surgical and obstetrical nurses in eight communities across BC and determine if the RSON initiative mitigated impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses’ quality of life. Methods: This longitudinal evaluation was administered via online surveys in 2021 and 2023. Work-related quality of life was measured with 23 items that assess job satisfaction, general wellbeing, work-life balance, stress level experienced at work, control, and working conditions. Professional quality of life was measured along three dimensions: compassion satisfaction (CS), burnout, and secondary traumatic stress (STS) (10 items each). Responses were linked by code and changes in quality of life were analyzed using paired Student's t-test. Results: 107 nurses participated at time 1 and 28 at time 2. Burnout and secondary traumatic stress scores at time 1 were lower among older nurses and those with children. Over the two-year period (2021 to 2023), significant increases were observed in burnout ( p < 0.001), and secondary traumatic stress ( p = 0.04), while work-related Quality-of-Life decreased significantly ( p = 0.04). Compassion satisfaction decreased over time, though not statistically significant. Conclusions: While the RSON initiative could not mitigate decreases in professional and work-related quality-of-life during COVID-19, it offered opportunities for clinical education and professional development among rural nurses.

Background: Analyses of factors that determine quality of perinatal care consistently rely on clinical markers, while failing to assess experiential outcomes. Understanding how model of care and birth setting influence experiences of respect, autonomy, and decision making, is essential for comprehensive assessment of quality. Methods: We examined responses (n = 1771) to an online cross-sectional national survey capturing experiences of perinatal care in the United States. We used validated patient-oriented measures and scales to assess four domains of experience: (1) decision-making, (2) respect, (3) mistreatment, and (4) time spent during visits. We categorized the provider type and birth setting into three groups: midwife at community birth, midwife at hospital-birth, and physician at hospital-birth. For each group, we used multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics, to estimate the odds of experiential outcomes in all the four domains. Results: Compared to those cared for by physicians in hospitals, individuals cared for by midwives in community settings had more than five times the odds of experiencing higher autonomy (aOR: 5.22, 95% CI: 3.65–7.45), higher respect (aOR: 5.39, 95% CI: 3.72–7.82) and lower odds of mistreatment (aOR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10–0.26). We found significant differences across birth settings: participants cared for by midwives in the community settings had significantly better experiential outcomes than those in the hospital settings: high- autonomy (aOR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.66–4.27), respect (aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 2.81–6.14), mistreatment (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11–0.34), time spent (aOR: 8.06, 95% CI: 4.26–15.28). Conclusion: Participants reported better experiential outcomes when cared for by midwives than by physicians. And for those receiving midwifery care, the quality of experiential outcomes was significantly higher in community settings than in hospital settings. Care settings matter and structures of hospital-based care may impair implementation of the person-centered midwifery care model.

Background: Anecdotal evidence suggests that the profile of midwifery clients in British Columbia has changed over the past 20 years and that midwives are increasingly caring for clients with moderate to high medical risk. We sought to compare perinatal outcomes with a registered midwife as the most responsible provider (MRP) versus outcomes among clients with physicians as their MRP across medical risk strata. Methods: This retrospective cohort study (2008–2018) used data from the BC Perinatal Data Registry. We included all births that had a family physician, obstetrician or midwife listed as the MRP (n = 425 056) and stratified the analysis by pregnancy risk status (low, moderate or high) according to an adapted perinatal risk scoring system. We estimated differences in outcomes between MRP groups by calculating adjusted absolute and relative risks. Results: The adjusted absolute and relative risks of adverse neonatal outcomes were consistently lower among those who chose midwifery care across medical risk strata, compared with clients who had a physician as MRP. Midwifery clients experienced higher rates of spontaneous vaginal births, vaginal births after cesarean delivery and breastfeeding initiation, and lower rates of cesarean deliveries and instrumental births, with no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. We observed an increased risk of oxytocin induction among high-risk birthers with a midwife versus an obstetrician as MRP. Interpretation: Our findings suggest that compared with other providers in BC, midwives provide safe primary care for clients with varied levels of medical risk. Future research might examine how different practice and remuneration models affect clinical outcomes, client and provider experiences, and costs to the health care system.

Background: The goal of this scoping review was to better understand how complexity in pregnancy is conceptualized. Specific objectives were to (1) identify factors that are conceptualized in the literature as complicating or impacting pregnancy; and (2) summarize tools and programs that have been implemented to support pregnant people with complex care needs.Methods: Electronic databases were searched from January 2000 to July 2020 and supplemented by bibliographic searches and citation chaining, to identify articles that described at least one nonmedical and one medical risk factor during pregnancy. We focused on complexity prior to the onset of labor and only included primary studies conducted in middle‐ or high‐income countries. More than 6000 records were screened independently by 3 reviewers at the abstract and title level.Results: Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria. Eight studies described antenatal risk scoring systems, including the Florida Healthy Start Prenatal Risk Screen, the Kindex risk screening tool, the prenatal event history calendar, and the Rotterdam Reproductive Risk Reduction score card. We abstracted 85 medical factors and 25 nonmedical factors from the literature. Nonmedical factors that were conceptualized as complicating pregnancy or birth could be grouped into 4 domains: characteristics of the childbearing person (7 factors), socioeconomic conditions (7 factors), family and social life (5 factors), and psychoemotional health (6 factors).Discussion: We found limited scholarly research and few assessment tools that broaden the discussion of complexity in pregnancy beyond medical multimorbidity. Multiple dimensions of health should be integrated into a complexity framework for pregnancy that account for the diverse contexts and needs of pregnant people. An important part of this process is the development of a shared language to describe complexity that is strength based and acknowledges how environments, health care encounters, and the larger sociocultural context can affect pregnant people's medical status in pregnancy.