2010 National Maternity Survey

ISSN 0256-5004 (Print)

By Nadine Edwards

AIMS Journal, 2015, Vol 27 No 1

Lindquist A, Kurinczuk JJ, Redshaw, Knight M (2014) Experiences, utilisation and outcomes of maternity care in England among women from different socio-economic groups: findings from the 2010 National Maternity Survey. BJOG 2014. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471- 0528.13059/full

This study looked at 'health care-seeking behaviour and experiences of 5332 women three months after they had given birth'. It focused on the differences between their behaviour and experiences by socio-economic groups to try and better understand 'why socially disadvantaged women have poorer maternal health outcomes in the UK'.

Summary

The results show that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to have missed out on care during pregnancy and after birth, and to report poor communication with, and disrespectful treatment from, health practitioners - and that this contributes to poorer outcomes.

AIMS comments

Like the authors of the Saving Mothers' Lives, and other studies and reports, the researchers recommend woman-centred care, accessible information and services, a change in culture and attitudes of health practitioners, greater continuity, better education and a shift of resources towards poorer women.

Similar recommendations have been made again and again.

Improving outcomes for women suffering disadvantages has apparently posed a puzzle for many years and services have attempted to redress the impact of inequalities. None to my knowledge have been as successful as the Albany Midwifery practice in south London. The women cared for by the Albany midwives were some of the poorest in England and are the very women behind the numbers in Andrea Lindquist et al's study who experienced poorer outcomes, and yet Albany mothers enjoyed some of the best outcomes in England, for over a decade.

Measuring success - Albany Practice Outcomes 1997 - 2007
Spontaneous Vaginal birth 80.4% (UK 62.9%)
Caesarean Section 16.4% (UK 25%)
Exclusive breastfeeding at 28 days 74% (UK 21% at 6 weeks)
Perinatal mortality 4.9/1000 (Southwark 11.8/1000 average in 2005-7)
Homebirth rate 45.1% (England 2.67% in 2007)
Statistics with thanks to Becky Reed

But more than this, reports from the women show that they felt well informed, listened to, respected and empowered. They were able to exert the agency which is shown to be lacking in so many surveys and studies. For example, a young, teenage woman who had not previously engaged with the services was supported by the Albany midwives through her subsequent six births and another young woman was supported to make decisions and birth safely and well, despite both women having social and/or obstetric complexities.1,2

Social models of midwifery, especially caseloading midwifery works. How much research do we need before this is implemented so that the poorer outcomes for poorer women are improved? Of course midwifery cannot reduce the very real and growing inequalities, but they can make a significant difference to outcomes at birth, the women's experience and breastfeeding.

References

  1. Reed B (2007) Ten years, seven brothers and sisters ... The Practising Midwife 10(7) 31-33.
  2. Reed B (2008) An unplanned hospital birth. The Practising Midwife 1(11) 24-26.


The AIMS Journal spearheads discussions about change and development in the maternity services..

AIMS Journal articles on the website go back to 1960, offering an important historical record of maternity issues over the past 60 years. Please check the date of the article because the situation that it discusses may have changed since it was published. We are also very aware that the language used in many articles may not be the language that AIMS would use today.

To contact the editors, please email: journal@aims.org.uk

We make the AIMS Journal freely available so that as many people as possible can benefit from the articles. If you found this article interesting please consider supporting us by becoming an AIMS member or making a donation. We are a small charity that accepts no commercial sponsorship, in order to preserve our reputation for providing impartial, evidence-based information. You can make donations at Peoples Fundraising. To become an AIMS member or join our mailing list see Join AIMS

AIMS supports all maternity service users to navigate the system as it exists, and campaigns for a system which truly meets the needs of all.

Latest Content

Journal

« »

Just ‘birth’: the phenomenon of bir…

AIMS Journal, 2023, Vol 35, No 4 Editor’s note: AIMS is honoured to present Mariamni’s research study in which she interviews 10 women who gave birth without a healthcare…

Read more

An interview with Dr Rebecca Moore…

AIMS Journal, 2023, Vol 35, No 4 Interview by Alex Smith Hello Rebecca, thank you for agreeing to answer some questions about your work with Make Birth Better. I wonder i…

Read more

Postpartum: A short story

AIMS Journal, 2023, Vol 35, No 4 Editor’s note: This is a fictional account of the state of mind of a mother suffering postnatal illness. As such, it is a powerful and di…

Read more

Events

« »

The Foundation Stones for Supportin…

‘The Foundation Stones for Supporting the Physiological Process in Pregnancy and Birth’ is led by Alex Smith (AIMS Journal Editor and Helpline volunteer) supported by Deb…

Read more

AIMS Workshop: Focus on Resolution

Join us for the an interactive online AIMS workshop " Focus on Resolution " with Dr Rebecca Moore . Rebecca who is a Consultant Psychiatrist and founding member of Make B…

Read more

Next steps for NICE in England

This conference will discuss next steps for NICE in delivering innovation and supporting clinical practice in health and social care in England. It is bringing stakeholde…

Read more

Latest Campaigns

« »

BICS Conference poster: AIMS Campai…

AIMS Campaigns Team volunteers are presenting a poster about our campaign for Physiology-Informed Maternity Services at the 2023 conference of the British Intrapartum Car…

Read more

Review: National Cohort study on in…

This is a review of the paper (https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004259%20 ) published on July 20, 2023 by researchers at St George’…

Read more

SWEPIS – The Swedish Post-term Indu…

The evidence on whether there is a benefit in inducing labour if a pregnancy would otherwise last beyond 41 or 42 weeks is far from clear. 1 The SWEPIS study 2 , publishe…

Read more