Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2008 Nov 1;99(Suppl 2):16–21. doi: 10.1007/BF03403799

Equity and Dignity in Maternity Care Provision in Canada, Finland and Iceland

Sirpa Wrede 13,✉, Cecilia Benoit 23, Thorgerdur Einarsdottir 33
PMCID: PMC6975619

Abstract

Objective

In recent decades, governments around the globe have been under pressure to create more efficient and effective health care systems. Research shows, particularly in middle- and low-income countries, that many of these neo-liberal policies that have been enacted have had a largely negative effect with regard to equitable health services for lower-income populations and dignified working conditions for health providers. In this paper we highlight recent reforms in health care in Canada, focusing on formal care during pregnancy and childbirth, and compare these to parallel developments in two Nordic countries–Finland and Iceland.

Method

We draw upon secondary data sources and primary research findings.

Results

Our comparative analysis pays close attention to barriers in access to primary care services across the childbearing period for lower-income women in the three countries, as well as the factors that create poor working conditions for the predominantly female maternity care labour force.

Discussion

As Canada struggles to deal with the crisis in its maternity care system, it could learn from developments in Finland and Iceland that promote teamwork among primary health care professionals and high-quality care for lower-income populations.

Fr: réforme des soins de santé, équité, dignité, soins de maternité, populations à faible revenu

Key words: Health care reform, equity, dignity, maternity care, lower-income populations

References

  • 1.Sen A. Health: Perception versus observation. BMJ. 2002;324:860–61. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7342.860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Whitehead M, Dahlgren G, McIntyre D. Putting equity centre stage: Challenging evidence-free reforms. Int J Health Serv. 2007;37(2):353–61. doi: 10.2190/B296-826U-6VH8-0U82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Esmail N, Walker M. 2005 Report. Vancouver, BC: The Fraser Institute; 2005. How Good is Canadian Health Care? [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Denton M, Zeytinoglu I, Davies S. Working in clients’ homes: The impact on the mental health and well-being of visiting home care workers. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2002;21(1):1–27. doi: 10.1300/J027v21n01_01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Denton M, Zeytinoglu I, Davies S, Lian J. Job stress and job dissatisfaction of home care workers in the context of health care restructuring. Int J Health Serv. 2002;32(2):327–57. doi: 10.2190/VYN8-6NKY-RKUM-L0XW. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Armstrong P, Armstrong H, Bourgeault I, Choiniere J, Lexchin J, Mykhalovskiy E, et al. Market principles, business practices and health care. Int J Can Studies. 2003;28:13–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Aronson J, Sammon S. Practice amid social service cuts and restructuring: Working with the contradictions of small victories. Can Soc Work Rev. 2000;17(2):167. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bezanson K, Luxton M, editors. Social Reproduction: Feminist Political Economy Challenges Neo-Liberalism. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mackintosh M, Koivusalo M. Commercialisation of Health Care. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Conrad P, Leiter V. Medicalization, markets and consumers. J Health Soc Behav. 2004;45:158–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sociol Res Online. 2005.
  • 12.DeVries R, Benoit C, Van Teijlingen E, Wrede S, editors. Birth by Design. London: Routledge; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Benoit C, Wrede S, Bourgeault I, Sandall J, Van Teijlingen E, DeVries R. Understanding the social organisation of maternity care systems. Sociol Health Illness. 2005;27(6):722–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00471.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wrede S, Benoit C, Bourgeault I, Van Teijlingen E, Sandall J, DeVries R. Decentred comparative research. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(11):2986–97. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.07.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Naylor N. Private Practice, Public Payment: Canadian Medicine and the Politics of Health Insurance, 1911–1966. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Olsen G. The Politics of the Welfare State: Canada, Sweden and the US. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health Care in Canada. Ottawa, ON: CIHI; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Organisation for Economic Co-operationDevelopment. Source OECD Health Data. Geneva: OECD; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Canadian Perinatal Service System. Canadian Perinatal Health Report. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2003. p. 55. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wrede S, Benoit C, Sandall J. The state and birth/the state of birth: Maternal health policy in three countries. In: DeVries R, Benoit C, Van Teijlingen E, Wrede S, editors. Birth by Design. London: Routledge; 2001. pp. 28–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Benoit C, Heitlinger A. Women’s health care work in comparative perspective. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(8):1101–11. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00123-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.O’Neil J, Kaufert P. The politics of obstetric care: The Inuit experience. In: Mitchinson W, Bourne P, Prentice A, Cuthbert Brandt G, Light B, Black N, editors. Canadian Women: A Reader. Toronto, ON: Harcourt Brace; 1996. pp. 416–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bourgeault I, Benoit C, Davis-Floyd R, editors. Reconceiving Midwifery. Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wen S, Mery L, Kramer M, Jimenez V, Trouton K, Herbert P, et al. Attitudes of Canadian women toward birthing centres and midwifery care for childbirth. CMAJ. 1999;161(6):708–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Harvey S, Rach D, Stainston M, Jarrell J, Brant R. Evaluation of satisfaction with midwifery care. Midwifery. 2002;18:260–67. doi: 10.1054/midw.2002.0317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Benoit C, Westfall R, Treloar A, Phillips R, Jansson SM. Social factors linked with postpar-tum depression. J Mental Health. 2007;16(6):719–30. doi: 10.1080/09638230701506846. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Peterson W, Medves JM, Davies BL, Graham I. Multidisciplinary collaborative maternity care in Canada: Easier said than done. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007;29(11):880–86. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32659-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Giving Birth in Canada: A Regional Profile. Ottawa: CIHI; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Giving Birth in Canada: Regional Trends from 2001–2002 to 2005–2006. Ottawa: CIHI; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Leeb K, Baibergenova A, Wen E, Webster G, Zelmer J. Are there socio-economic differences in Caesarean section rates in Canada? Healthcare Policy/Politiques de Santé. 2005;1:48–54. doi: 10.12927/hcpol..17566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Perinatal Health Indicators for Canada. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wrede S. Decentering Care for Mothers. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Organisation for Economic Co-operationDevelopment. OECD Health Data. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Programme Report, 2007/2008. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008. p. 281. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Statistics Iceland. Wages, Income and Labour Market. Statistical Series 2008;4(April 11). Available online at: https://doi.org/www.hagstofa.is/ lisalib/getfile.aspx?ItemID=8012 (Accessed August 10, 2008).
  • 36.The Icelandic Birth Registration . Available online at. 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.STAKES . Finnish Birth Register data. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health Indicators. Ottawa: CIHI; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kojo-Austin H, Malin M, Hemminki E. Women’s satisfaction with maternity health care services in Finland. Soc Sci Med. 2003;37:633–38. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90102-A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Henriksson L, Wrede S, Burau V. Understanding professional projects in welfare service work. Gender, Work and Organization. 2006;14(2):174–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2006.00302.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Gissler M, Meriläinen J, Vuori E, Hemminki E. Register based monitoring shows decreasing socioeconomic differences in Finnish perinatal health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57:433–39. doi: 10.1136/jech.57.6.433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Organisation for Economic Co-operationDevelopment. OECD Health Data. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Finnish Ministry of Social AffairsHealth. Seksuaali–ja lisääntymisterveyden edistäminen. Toimintaohjelma 2007–2011. Promotion of Sexual and Reproductive Health Action Programme 2007–2011. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Law on the Changes of the Public Health Act (Laki kansanterveyslain muuttamisesta), 2005.
  • 45.Finnish Ministry of Social AffairsHealth. The New Health Care Act. Helsinki: Memorandum of the Working Group Preparing the Health Care Act.; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Halldórsson M. Health Care Systems in Transition: Iceland. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Copenhagen: WHO; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Sigurgeirsdóttir S. Health Policy and Hospital Mergers: How the Impossible became Possible. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kristjánsdóttir H. Allt vegna fóstursins. Afleidingar ómskodunar (All for the unborn child. Consequences of screening) In: Jónsson P, Jónsdóttir A, editors. Sjúkdómsvaeding (Medicalisation) Reykjavík: Fraedslunet Sudurlands, Sidfraedistofnun, Háskólaútgáfan; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Sigurdsson JA. The GP’s role in maternity care. Scand J Primary Care. 2003;21:65. doi: 10.1080/02813430310000302302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bjarnadóttir RI, Gardarsdóttir G, Smárason AK, Pálsson GI, editors. faedingarskráningunni (The Icelandic Birth Registration). Kvennadeild og Barnaspítali Hringsins. Landspítali-Háskólasjúkrahús (Landspitali University Hospital) 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Gottfredsdóttir H. Breyttar áherslur í medgongu-vernd í ljósi nýrra adferda til fósturgreiningar og skimunar (Changes in maternal care in the light of new methods for prenatal screening. In: Jónsdóttir H, editor. Frá innsaei til inngripa: Thekkingarthroun í hjúkrunar-og ljósmódurfrae-di. Reykjavík: Hid íslenska Bókmenntfélag; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ólafsdóttir A. Breytingar og thróun í námi í ljósmódurfraedi (Changes and development in the education of midwifery) Ljósmaedrabladid (Journal of Midwives) 1995;73(2):14–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Bjarnadóttir R. No correlation between rates of caesarean section and perinatal mortality in Iceland? Laeknabladid (Icelandic Medical Journal) 2006;91:191–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Association of Icelandic Midwives. Available online at. 2008. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES