Thank you very much for sharing your wealth of knowledge with us Alison.
It’s a great explanation and makes sense.
Best wishes
Lucia
Sent from my iPhone
> On 26 Oct 2018, at 16:07, Macfarlane, Alison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> What happened to induction in the 1970s was that an analysis of the 1958 perinatal mortality survey had been published showing that perinatal mortality was higher among post term than term babies. This was assumed to be causal rather than selection. So without looking for further evidence in an era when RCTs were few and far between and systematic reviewing hadn't yet been invented the powers that be decided that post term babies should all be induced. Then the definition of 'post term' widened so that the induction rate shot up to 44 per cent. This was challenged by the campaigning groups which were also campaigning for home births in reaction to the Peel Report, which had also decided, in the absence of evidence that all births should take place in hospital. There was some evidence to oppose the induction epidemic. An analysis of a 'natural experiment' comparing trends over time in two maternity units in Cardiff with very contrasting styles of practice failed to support the conclusion that rocketing rates of induction would reduce perinatal mortality. A key campaigner in this was Jean Robinson, who was very active in AIMS until the recent coup. Amazingly, the epidemic subsided. The gap in the data was because of change in data collection. It was difficult to collect data about induction in the previous system as it recorded ARM and oxytocics but didn't distinguish between their use for induction or augmentation, so the 44 per cent may be an overestimate, but the rate was certainly high. So a combination or research and strong minded campaigners seems to have been a key factor.
>
>
> Today's epidemic, I gather, is in response to the late Secretary of State's 'ambition' to reduce our stillbirth rates to the same level as in Norway, where intervention rates are low and the midwifery profession is strong. Those of you who sit on committees can correct me, but I understand that two components of the 'Saving Babies Lives' care bundle are fetal movement counting, which the AFFIRM trial has shown didn't reduce stillbirth rates but did increase induction and caesarean rates and electronic fetal monitoring which also has been shown to increase intervention rates but not to decrease mortality.
>
>
> It looks to me as if 'Saving Babies Lives' is much more powerful than any 'Maternity Transformation plans'. Are there any campaigners left out there, apart from those campaigning for caesarean section on demand and for privatisation of midwifery care?
>
>
> Perhaps Norwegian midwives are the people to ask for advice?
>
>
> Best wishes, Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Coxon, Kirstie <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 26 October 2018 12:19
> To: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research.; Macfarlane, Alison
> Subject: RE: New maternity statistics for England published today
>
>
> Dear Alison
>
> Thanks for circulating these statistics and for sharing the attached graphs. Out of interest, do you, or other list members, know what on earth was happening with induction in the 1970s? (Graph 2) Or how it managed to rise and fall so dramatically? Perhaps there are lessons there for us now?
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Kirstie
>
>
>
> From: A forum for discussion on midwifery and reproductive health research.
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=MIDWIFERY-RESEARCH&A=1
|