To develop a tool known as the Birth Unit Design Spatial Evaluation Tool (BUDSET), to assess the optimality of birth unit design.
Background:
The space provided for childbirth influences the physiology of women in labor. Optimal birth spaces are likely to enable women to have physiologically normal labor and birth. The measurement of an optimal birth space is currently impossible, because limited tools are available. Research into optimal birth unit design is also limited.
Methods:
The BUDSET was developed using a qualitative study. Data collection included an extensive literature review, interviews with key informants (architects, midwife clinicians, and researchers) and an expert panel. A Pattern Language format was used to synthesize the literature and data obtained from the key informants.
Results:
The BUDSET is based on 18 design principles and is divided into four domains (Fear Cascade; Facility; Aesthetics; Support) with three to eight assessable items in each.
Conclusion:
Birth units must be designed so that they facilitate and support the physiology of normal childbirth. The BUDSET may provide a way to assess the optimality of birth units and determine which domain areas may need to be improved.
AlexanderC.IshikawaS., & SilversteinM. A. (1977). Pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2.
AnjaliA., & RashidM. (2007). The architecture of safety: Hospital design. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 13, 714–719.
3.
BoultonM.ChappleJ., & SaundersD. (2003). Evaluating a new service: Clinical outcomes and women's assessments of the Edgeware Birth Centre. In KirkhamM. (Ed.), Birth centres: A social model for maternity care.London, United Kingdom: Books for Midwives, Elsevier Science.
4.
DahlenH.BarclayL. M., & HomerC. S. E. (2008). Preparing for the first birth: Mothers' experiences at home and in hospital in Australia. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 17(4), 21–32.
5.
DavisD., & WalkerK. (2008). Re-discovering the material body through an exploration of theories of embodiment. Midwifery, doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2008.10.004
6.
DavisD., & WalkerK. (2010). The corporeal, the social and space/place: Exploring intersections from a midwifery perspective. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 17(3), 377–391.
7.
de BottonA. (2006). The architecture of happiness: The secret art of furnishing your life.New York, NY: Penguin.
8.
DevlinA. (2003). Health care environments and patient outcomes. A review of the literature. Environment and Behavior, 35(5), 665–694.
9.
DilaniA. (2004). New paradigm of design and health. In DilaniA. (Ed.), Health promotion through environmental design (pp. 15–25). Stockholm, Sweden: International Academy for Design & Health.
10.
FahyK. (2008). Power and the social construction of birth territory. In FahyK.FoureurM., & HastieC. (Eds.), Birth territory and midwifery guardianship: Theory for practice, education and research (pp. 3–10). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.
11.
FahyK.FoureurM., & HastieC. (2008). Birth territory and midwifery guardianship: Theory for practice, education and research.Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.
12.
ForbesI.HomerC.FoureurM., & LeapN. (2008, October). Birthing unit design: Researching new principles. Design & Health Scientific Review, 47–53.
13.
FoucaultM. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews.New York, NY: Pantheon.
14.
FoureurM., & HunterM. (2007). The place of birth. In PairmanS.PincombeJ.ThorogoodC., & TracyS. (Eds.), Midwifery—Preparation for practice.Sydney, Australia: Elsevier.
15.
GulloneE. (2000). The biophilia hypothesis and life in the 21st century: Increasing mental health or increasing pathology?Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 293–321.
16.
HoodL.FenwickJ., & ButtJ. (2008). A story of scrutiny and fear: Australian midwives' experiences of an external review of obstetric services, being involved with litigation and the impact on clinical practice. Midwifery, doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2008.07.008
17.
LeporiB. (1994). Freedom of movement in birth places. Children's Environments, 11(2), 81–87.
18.
LeporiB.FoureurM., & HastieC. (2008). Mindbodyspirit architecture: Creating birth space. In FahyK.FoureurM., & HastieC., (Eds.), Birth territory and midwifery guardianship: Theory for practice, education and research (pp. 95–112). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.
19.
LockL. R., & GibbH. J. (2003). The power of place. Midwifery, 19(2), 132–139.
20.
McCarthyM. (2004). Healthy design. The Lancet, 364, 405–406.
21.
NewburnM. (2006). What women want from care around the time of birth. In PageL. & McCandlishR. (Eds.), The new midwifery: Science and sensitivity in practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier.
22.
NewburnM., & SinghD. (2005). Are women getting the birth environment they need? A report of a national survey of women's experiences, London, United Kingdom: National Childbirth Trust.
23.
NSW Health. (2005). NSW health facility guideline. Post occupancy facility guideline.Sydney, Australia: NSW Health and University of New South Wales.
24.
NSW Health. (2007). NSW health facility guidelines: Post occupancy evaluation guideline—Final issue February 2007.Sydney, Australia: NSW Health.
Shur BlichukG. (2002, July/August). A better place to heal. Health Forum Journal, 10–15.
27.
SymonA.PaulJ.ButchartM.CarrV., & DugardP. (2008a). Maternity unit design study Part 2: Perceptions of space and layout. British Journal of Midwifery, 16(2), 110–114.
28.
SymonA.PaulJ.ButchartM.CarrV., & DugardP. (2008b). Maternity unit design study Part 3: Environmental comfort and control. British Journal of Midwifery, 16(3), 167–171.
29.
SymonA.PaulJ.ButchartM.CarrV., & DugardP. (2008c). Maternity unit design study Part 4: Midwives' perceptions of staff facilities. British Journal of Midwifery, 16(4), 228–231.
30.
TeixeiraJ.FiskN., & GloverV. (1999). Association between maternal anxiety in pregnancy and increased uterine artery resistance index: Cohort based study. British Journal of Medicine, 318(7177), 153–157.
31.
TrevathanW., & McKennaJ. (1994). Evolutionary environments of human birth and infancy: Insights to apply to contemporary life. Children's Environments, 11(2), 13–36.
32.
UlrichR. (1984). A view from the window may influence recovery from surgery. Science America, 224(4647), 420–421.
33.
UlrichR. (1997). A theory of supportive design for health care facilities. Journal of Healthcare Design, IX, 3–7.
34.
UlrichR.ZimringC.XuemeiZ.DuBoseJ.SeoH.ChoiY.JosephA. (2008). Evidence-based healthcare design. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 1(3), 61–125.
35.
WalshD. (2006a). Improving maternity services. Small is beautiful: Lessons for maternity services from a birth centre.Oxford, United Kingdom: Radcliffe Publishing.
36.
WalshD. (2006b). “Nesting” and “matrescence”: Distinctive features of a free-standing birth centre. Midwifery, 22(3), 228–239.
37.
WalshD. (2006c). Subverting assembly-line birth: Childbirth in a free-standing birth centre. Social Science & Medicine, 62(6), 1330–1340.
38.
WalshD., & DowneS. (2004). Outcomes of free-standing, midwife-led birth centers: A structured review. Birth, 31(3), 222.
39.
WatsonJ. (1999). Postmodern nursing and beyond.Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Churchill Livingstone.
40.
WilsonE. (1984). Biophilia.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
