Author:
Lukač Azra,Šulović Nenad,Ilić Aleksandra,Mijović Milica,Tasić Dijana,Smiljić Sonja
Abstract
Abstract
Background and objectives
The aim of the study was to use the United States Optimality Index (OI-US) to assess the feasibility of its application in making decisions for more optimal methods of delivery and for more optimal postpartum and neonatal outcomes. Numerous worldwide associations support the option of women giving birth at maternity outpatient clinics and also at home. What ought to be met is the assessments of requirements and what could be characterized as the birth potential constitute the basis for making the right decision regarding childbirth.
Materials and methods
The study is based on a prospective follow-up of pregnant women and new mothers (100 participants) who were monitored and gave birth at the hospital maternity ward (HMW) and pregnant women and new mothers (100 participants) who were monitored and gave birth at the outhospital maternity clinics (OMC). Selected patients were classified according to the criteria of low and medium-risk and each of the parameters of the OI and the total OI were compared.
Results
The results of this study confirm the benefits of intrapartum and neonatal outcome, when delivery was carried out in an outpatient setting. The median OI of intrapartum components was significantly higher in the outpatient setting compared to the hospital maternity ward (97 range from 24 to 100 vs 91 range from 3 to 100). The median OI of neonatal components was significantly higher in the outpatient compared to the inpatient delivery. (99 range from 97 to 100 vs 96 range from 74 to 100). Certain components from the intrapartum and neonatal period highly contribute to the significantly better total OI in the outpatient conditions in relation to hospital conditions.
Conclusion
Outpatient care and delivery provide multiple benefits for both the mother and the newborn.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Reference34 articles.
1. Simić J, Jerinić J. Pravo na porođaj kod kuće– izbor, a ne slučajnost i neke pravne posledice. Pravni Zapisi. 2014;Br 1:120–61 Serbian. https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-6103.
2. Johanson R, Newburn M, Macfarlane A. Has the medicalisation of childbirth gone too far? BMJ. 2002;324(7342):892–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7342.892.
3. UNFPA, ICM, WHO. State of the world’s midwifery 2011: delivering health, saving lives. New York: UNFPA; 2011. http://www.GoogleScholar
4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s mothers and babies 2015—in brief. Perinatal statistics series no. 33. Cat no. PER 91. Canberra: AIHW; 2017.
5. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Carol SC. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD003766. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub5.