Women and Birth RSS feed: Current Issue. Women and Birth publishes on all matters that affect women and birth, from pre-conceptual counselling, through pregnancy, birth, and the first six weeks postnatal. All papers accepted will draw from and contribute to the relevant contemporary research, policy and/or theoretical literature.  We seek research papers, quality assurances papers (with ethical approval) discussion papers, clinical practice papers, case studies and original literature reviews. Our women-centred focus is inclusive of the foetus and the newborn, both well and ill, and covers both normal and abnormal pregnancies and births. The journal seeks papers on midwifery practice, theory, research, education and leadership.  Topics may include where appropriate neonatal nursing, child and family health nursing, women's health and lactation consultancy. Papers from academics and health professionals from fields outside of midwifery are encouraged. We seek papers on reproductive physiology and neurophysiology where the links to the childbearing woman and her baby are made explicit.  We also seek relevant papers on natural and complementary therapies, local, national and international policy, management, politics, economics, societal and cultural issues as they affect childbearing women and their families.  Articles are double-blind peer-reviewed by experts in the field of the submitted work. The journal is indexed in PubMed, Index medicus (Medline), SCOPUS, and CINAHL. To purchase books on Midwifery or to browse our comprehensive range of Midwifery titles, please visit us at shop.elsevier.com.au. Shop.elsevier.com.au/Midwifery http://www.womenandbirth.org/?rss=yesElsevier Inc.en © 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Women and Birth1871-5192251March 2012 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. healthpermissions@elsevier.comhttp://www.womenandbirth.org/article/PIIS1871519212000066/abstract?rss=yesContents10.1016/S1871-5192(12)00006-6Women and Birth 25, 1 (2012)2012-03-01Women and Birth2012-03-01251S1871-5192(12)X0002-7iiiihttp://www.womenandbirth.org/article/PIIS1871519211002538/abstract?rss=yesOver the past 10 years, in particular, I have been observing, reading about and contributing to the discussion on midwifery models of care. Issue of safety have been particularly heated when midwives provide care during labour and birth outside of the obstetric unit context. I watched with enthusiasm as a Birthing Services was established under the leadership of Anne Saxton the Director of Maternity Service, Andrew Bisits as Director of Obstetrics and Carolyn Hastie as the Midwifery Unit Manager at the stand-alone birthing service situated at Belmont (20min from John Hunter, the major obstetrics units). The midwifery model of care at Belmont was designed to be high quality. The unit was commenced with a staff comprised of only skilled and experienced midwives. There was extensive and ongoing training and credentialing for the midwives. The Belmont midwives were/are part of the health service and integrated to the organisational structure of the maternity service in terms of access to training and supervision. The health outcomes for women who birthed there were amazing with, for example, a postpartum haemorrhage rate of 2.8% which compared with 11.2% for a matched group of low risk women at the John Hunter Hospital. My understanding of what constitutes a midwifery model of care has been shaped by the Belmont Birth Services model. In this editorial my thesis is that there is great heterogeneity of midwifery models of care making it impossible to claim that ‘midwifery models’ are either safe or unsafe. However, we can strive to maximise the quality of all midwifery provided care so as to make it as safe and effective as possible.What makes a midwifery model of care safe?Kathleen Fahy10.1016/j.wombi.2011.12.003Women and Birth 25, 1 (2012)2012-01-30Women and Birth2012-01-30251S1871-5192(12)X0002-7Editorial13http://www.womenandbirth.org/article/PIIS1871519210000880/abstract?rss=yesSummary: Objective: There is evidence that the use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by childbearing women is becoming increasingly popular in industrialised countries. The aim of this is paper is to review the research literature investigating the midwives’ support for the use of these therapies.Method: A search for relevant research published from 2000 to 2009 was undertaken using a range of databases and by examining relevant bibliographies. A total of thirteen studies were selected for inclusion in this review.Results: The findings indicate that the use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine is widespread in midwifery practice. Common indications for use include; labour induction and augmentation, nausea and vomiting, relaxation, back pain, anaemia, mal-presentation, perineal discomfort, postnatal depression and lactation problems. The most popular therapies recommended by midwives are massage therapy, herbal medicines, relaxation techniques, nutritional supplements, aromatherapy, homeopathy and acupuncture. Midwives support the use Complementary and Alternative Medicine because they believe it is philosophically congruent; it provides safe alternatives to medical interventions; it supports the woman's autonomy, and; incorporating Complementary and Alternative Medicine can enhance their own professional autonomy.Conclusions: There is considerable support by midwives for the use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by expectant women. Despite this enthusiasm, currently there are few educational opportunities and only limited research evidence regarding CAM use in midwifery practice. These shortfalls need to be addressed by the profession. Midwives are encouraged to have an open dialogue with childbearing women, to document use and to base any advice on the best available evidence.Midwives’ support for Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A literature reviewHelen G. Hall, Lisa G. McKenna, Debra L. Griffiths10.1016/j.wombi.2010.12.005Women and Birth 25, 1 (2012)2011-06-20Women and Birth2011-06-20251S1871-5192(12)X0002-7Review412http://www.womenandbirth.org/article/PIIS1871519211000199/abstract?rss=yesAbstract: Background: About one third of refugee and humanitarian entrants to Australia are women age 12–44 years. Pregnant women from refugee backgrounds may have been exposed to a range of medical and psychosocial issues that can impact maternal, fetal and neonatal health.Research question: What are the key elements that characterise a best practice model of maternity care for women from refugee backgrounds? This paper outlines the findings of a project which aimed at developing such a model at a major maternity hospital in Brisbane, Australia.Participants and methods: This multifaceted project included a literature review, consultations with key stakeholders, a chart audit of hospital use by African-born women in 2006 that included their obstetric outcomes, a survey of 23 African-born women who gave birth at the hospital in 2007–08, and a survey of 168 hospital staff members.Results: The maternity chart audit identified complex medical and social histories among the women, including anaemia, female circumcision, hepatitis B, thrombocytopenia, and barriers to access antenatal care. The rates of caesarean sections and obstetric complications increased over time. Women and hospital staff surveys indicated the need for adequate interpreting services, education programs for women regarding antenatal and postnatal care, and professional development for health care staff to enhance cultural responsiveness.Discussion and conclusions: The findings point towards the need for a model of refugee maternity care that comprises continuity of carer, quality interpreter services, educational strategies for both women and healthcare professionals, and the provision of psychosocial support to women from refugee backgrounds.Developing a best practice model of refugee maternity careIgnacio Correa-Velez, Jennifer Ryan10.1016/j.wombi.2011.01.002Women and Birth 25, 1 (2012)2011-06-20Women and Birth2011-06-20251S1871-5192(12)X0002-7Research articles1322http://www.womenandbirth.org/article/PIIS1871519211000230/abstract?rss=yesAbstract: Background: The detection of maternal depression can be improved with routine screening. This practice is expected to be integrated into midwifery practice under the Australia National Perinatal Depression Initiative.Research objective: To describe midwives’ self-reported practice in caring for women suffering from antenatal and postpartum depressive symptoms; and assess midwives’ ability to detect depression and their knowledge of therapeutic interventions for depressive symptoms in childbearing women.Method: Using a descriptive cohort study design, a postal survey was sent to all members of the Australian College of Midwives (n=3000). The survey consisted of items drawn from beyondblue's “National Baseline Survey – Screening Evaluation Questionnaire” and questions relating to a hypothetical case study of a depressed woman “Mary” developed by Buist et al.Findings: A total of 815 completed surveys were received. 69.1% of midwives reported screening for antenatal and postpartum depression using instruments such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Time constraints were perceived as the major barrier to effective emotional care. 63.3% of midwives correctly recognised depression in the case study and 82.4% reported that “Mary” required assistance. Antidepressants were more likely to be recommended postnatally (93.2%) than antenatally (61.5%) by midwives.Conclusions: Further training is required to ensure midwives’ competency in psychosocial assessment and management of women experiencing antenatal and postpartum depression. Systemic issues (e.g. time constraints) encountered by midwives need to be addressed to support the delivery of effective emotional care to childbearing women.Australian midwives’ awareness and management of antenatal and postpartum depressionCindy J. Jones, Debra K. Creedy, Jenny A. Gamble10.1016/j.wombi.2011.03.001Women and Birth 25, 1 (2012)2011-06-20Women and Birth2011-06-20251S1871-5192(12)X0002-7Research articles2328http://www.womenandbirth.org/article/PIIS1871519211000254/abstract?rss=yesSummary: In adopting the medical lobby's preferred definition of collaboration where midwives are legally compelled to seek endorsement for their care plan from an obstetrician, Determination 2010 connotes a form of militarized collaboration and thus negates all that genuine collaboration stands for—equality, mutual trust and reciprocal respect. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, the first half of this paper analyses the submissions from medical, midwifery and consumer peak organisations to the Maternity Services Review and Senate reviews held between 2008 and 2010 showing that Determination 2010 privileges the medical lobby worldview in adopting a vertical definition of collaboration. The second half of the paper responds to the principal assumption of Determination 2010—that midwives do not voluntarily collaborate. It argues by reference to a qualitative inquiry conducted into select caseload maternity units in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales during 2009–2010 that this presupposition is erroneous. The evidence shows that genuine collaboration is possible without legislative force but it requires a coalition of the willing among senior midwives and obstetricians to institute regular interdisciplinary meetings and clinical reviews and to model respectful behaviour to new entrants.When is collaboration not collaboration? When it's militarizedKaren Lane10.1016/j.wombi.2011.03.003Women and Birth 25, 1 (2012)2011-12-16Women and Birth2011-12-16251S1871-5192(12)X0002-7Discussions2938http://www.womenandbirth.org/article/PIIS1871519211000035/abstract?rss=yesSummary: The aim of this paper is to review the clinical outcomes of descriptive and comparative cohort studies of the Australian caseload midwifery models of care that emerged during the late 1990s and early 2000s. These models report uniformly a decrease in caesarean section operation rates when compared to local, state and national rates, irrespective of the obstetric risk of the women cared for. These outcomes are in contrast to the findings of the randomised controlled trials and comparative cohort studies of caseload midwifery conducted, predominantly in the United Kingdom, in the mid to late 1990s. The Australian studies show that caseload midwifery is a model of care that is associated with lowered rates of caesarean section operations, and other obstetric intervention rates. The absence of definitive evidence of the effect of caseload midwifery, derived from published descriptive and comparative cohort studies, underlines the need for a sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery. The randomised controlled trial of caseload midwifery being undertaken in two major teaching hospitals in Australia will provide definitive answers relating to the effect of the caseload midwifery model of care for women of all risk in the Australian context.Australian caseload midwifery: The exception or the ruleDonna L. Hartz, Maralyn Foureur, Sally K. Tracy10.1016/j.wombi.2011.01.001Women and Birth 25, 1 (2012)2011-06-20Women and Birth2011-06-20251S1871-5192(12)X0002-7Discussions3946http://www.womenandbirth.org/article/PIIS187151921100254X/abstract?rss=yesReviewers’ Acknowledgement 201110.1016/j.wombi.2011.12.004Women and Birth 25, 1 (2012)2012-01-19Women and Birth2012-01-19251S1871-5192(12)X0002-74747http://www.womenandbirth.org/article/PIIS1871519212000091/abstract?rss=yesInstructions to Authors10.1016/S1871-5192(12)00009-1Women and Birth 25, 1 (2012)2012-03-01Women and Birth2012-03-01251S1871-5192(12)X0002-74849