Shifting Tides—from Storm to Salvation

  • Sheena Byrom
  • Anna Byrom


Letting go of fear and being healed. How do women go forward and face life when they are a new person but also a mother? We are in a fast-moving health economy that is driven by evidence and also subject to ensuring that women’s experiences and expectations are met. What can midwives and obstetricians do to ensure that care is not compromised one way or the other? Modern women have busy lives, they may have moved away from their families unlike the women who gave birth in the 50s, where can they seek help and support to make this transition. This chapter will discuss the changing interface of personalised care and how this can promote self-help with professional support. What should services look for to ensure that they are woman focussed and not just output directed? What will services, education providers and health care professions need to change for the future of women’s psychological well-being?


Hope Healing Future Positivity Solutions 


  1. Ayres S, Bond R, Bertullies S, Wijma K (2016) The aetiology of post-traumatic stress following childbirth: a meta-analysis and theoretical framework. Psychol Med 46(6):1121–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birthrate Plus (2015) Birthrate Plus. Accessed 2 Apr 2019
  3. Bowden C, Foureur M, Sheehan A (2015) Reading images of birth rooms. Women Birth 28(1):S41–S42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown B (2015) Rising strong. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown B (2017) Braving the wilderness: The quest for true belonging and the courage to stand alone. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrom S, Byrom A (2014) Social media: connecting women and midwives globally. MIDIRS Midwifery Dig 24(2):141–149Google Scholar
  7. Byrom S, Downe S (2010) She sort of shines: midwives’ accounts of ‘good’ midwifery and ‘good’ leadership. Midwifery 26(1):126–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrom S, Downe S (2015) What’s going on in maternity care? In: Byrom S, Downe S (eds) The roar behind the silence: why kindness, compassion and respect matter in maternity care. Pinter and Martin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Byrom S, Byrom A (2017) Around the world in 80 tweets. In: Luce A, Hundley V, van Teijlingen E (eds) Midwifery, childbirth and the media. Palgrave, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Campling P (2015) Putting relationships at the heart of maternity care. In: Byrom S, Downe S (eds) The roar behind the silence: why kindness, compassion and respect matter in maternity care. Pinter and Martin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Coxon K (2012) Making evidence about risks and benefits accessible to parents. Perspective: NCT’s journal on preparing parents for birth and early parenthood.
  12. Divall B (2015) A rock and a hard place: challenges for midwifery leadership. Women Birth 28(1):S12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Every Woman Every Child (2015) The global strategy for women’s children’s and adolescents’ health: survive, thrive, transform (2016–2030). Accessed 24 Mar 2019
  14. Hammond A, Homer C, Foureur M (2017) Friendliness, functionality and freedom: design characteristics that support midwifery practice in the hospital setting. Midwifery 50:133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammond A, Foureur M (2019) Interconnectivity in the birth room. In: Downe S, Byrom S (eds) Squaring the circle: normal birth research, theory and practice in a technological age. Pinter and Martin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill M (2017) The positive birth book. Pinter and Martin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. IMBCO (2018) 12 steps to safe and respectful motherbaby-family maternity care. Accessed 23 Mar 2019
  18. James L, Brintworth K 2018 Effective co-production through local Maternity Voices Partnerships (MVPs): a resource for commissioners. (London Clinical Networks)
  19. Lancet (2014) Midwifery. Lancet. Accessed 28 Mar 2019
  20. Lancet (2016) Maternal health. Lancet. Accessed 20 Mar 2019
  21. Lancet (2018) Stemming the global caesarean section epidemic. Lancet 392(10155):1279 Scholar
  22. Lipsky M (1980) Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Magistretti CM, Downe S, Lindstrøm B, Berg M, Tritten Schwarz K (2016) Setting the stage for health: salutogenesis in midwifery professional knowledge in three European countries. Int J Qual Stud Health Well Being 11(1):33155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller SE, Abalos M, Chamillard A, Ciapponi D, Colaci D, Comande V et al (2016) Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. Lancet 388(10056):2176–2192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Maternity Review (2016) Better births: improving outcomes of maternity services in england—a fiveyear forward view for maternity care. Accessed 28 Mar 2019
  26. NHS England (2017) Maternity transformation programme.
  27. Perez-Escamilla R, Curry L, Minhas D, Taylor L, Bradley E (2012) Scaling up of breastfeeding promotion programme in low- and middle-income countries: the ‘breastfeeding gear’ model. Adv Nutr 3:790–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Positive Birth Movement (2019) Positive birth movement. Accessed 2 Apr 2019
  29. Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH et al (2014) Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence- informed framework for maternal and newborn care. Lancet 384(9948):1129–1145. Scholar
  30. Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D (2015) Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD004667Google Scholar
  31. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312(7023):71–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shah N (2018) A soaring maternal mortality rate: what does it mean for you? Harvard Health Blog. Accessed 2 Apr 2019
  33. Shah N (2019) Behind the headlines about maternal mortality. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Accessed 20 Mar 2019
  34. Unicef (2009) Communication for development (C4D) capability development framework. UNICEF and 3D Change, 2009.
  35. Unicef (2012) Communication for development (C4D): the rationale for the selection of C4D indicators monitoring and promoting C4D interventions for positive and sustained change. UNICEF, Programme Division, C4D Section, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Walsh D (2006) ‘Nesting’ and ‘Matrescence’ as distinctive features of a free-standing birth centre in the UK. Midwifery 22(3):228–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. WHO (2016a) WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. WHO. Accessed 20 Mar 2019
  38. WHO (2016b) Global strategy for women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health (2016–2030). Every Woman Every Child, New York. Accessed 19 Feb 2018
  39. WHO (2018a) WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. WHO. Accessed 20 Mar 2019
  40. WHO (2018b) WHO recommendations: non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections. WHO. Accessed 20 Mar 2019
  41. Woodward S (2019) Cat, dane and suze. Accessed 24 Mar 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheena Byrom
    • 1
  • Anna Byrom
    • 2
  1. 1.Midwife and DirectorAll4MaternityLancashireUK
  2. 2.University of Central LancashirePrestonUK

Personalised recommendations