The dataset is a collection of data undertaken by the members of Work Package 2 (WP2), of the ASPIRE COVID-19 project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), as part of UK Research and Innovation’s rapid response to COVID-19 [grant number ES/V004581/1]. Full details of the main study are available via ResearchRegistry (researchregistry5911) and via UKRI Gateway (https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FV004581%2F1). This dataset contains interviews (n=13) with leads (stakeholders in maternal and neonatal care) in relevant national governmental, professional, and service user organisations in the Netherlands (See section WP2 – point 3). 13 anonymised semi-structured interviews – transcribed (NL only). *The relevant UK dataset can be found here: https://doi.org/10.17030/uclan.data.00000319UK policy is for safe, personalised maternity care. However, during COVID-19 tests and visits have been reduced in some places, and some women with worrying symptoms are not going to hospital. Other places are trying new solutions, including remote access technologies. Some Trusts have reduced community maternity services, including home and birthcentre births; barred birth companions in early labour; and separated mothers, babies, and partners during labour, and in neonatal units. There are reports of women giving birth at home without professional help, possibly due to fear of infection, or of family separation. In contrast, the Netherlands has a policy of increased community maternity services during COVID-19. We want to find out how best to provide care for mothers, babies, and partners during and after a pandemic. We will look at what documents and national leads say about service organisation in the UK and the Netherlands, and at women's and parents experiences. We will also look in detail at what happened in 8 UK Trusts during the pandemic. We will find out how their services have been organised during COVID-19, what parents and staff think, and what the outcomes are, including infections. We will then share the findings with key stakeholders to agree a final organisational model that can be used to ensure safe, personalised routine and crisis maternity care, now, and in future. This will include useful resources and links relating to innovative best practices that we find out about during the study.

Methodology (Interviews with leads in relevant national governmental, professional, and service user organisations in the NL) An email, information sheet and consent form were forwarded (electronically), and participants were asked to respond within two weeks if they would like to take part. The interview was held online (e.g., Microsoft Teams, Skype). As there could be issues in email encryption, and postal options were not feasible at the current time, the consent form were reviewed at the start of the interview, and then signed by the researcher on the participant’s behalf. The consent procedure was recorded (including participant’s responses and agreement) for verification purposes. A semi-structured interview guide was used, and questions include exploring the participant’s experience, involvement and perceptions of who, how, why and what decisions have been made in the maternity care delivery; how information about service changes have been communicated, monitored and assessed, what are/have been the likely of the service changes, and facilitators and barriers experienced. Pre-defined topics as well as other areas, e.g. based on what the participant disclosed, were explored. Interviews were audio-recorded; UK interviews were transcribed by in vivo by voice-to-text software, and in The Netherlands, interviews were transcribed by research staff. Interviews undertaken in Dutch were translated by Google Scholar and checked by native speakers as appropriate. All stakeholders received an information sheet that provided details as to what participation involved, the voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality, anonymity and withdrawal - participants had the option to withdraw their data up to one-month post interview. As participant’s views may be unique by virtue of their role, and therefore potentially identifiable to others, participants were asked to indicate whether they were happy for their views to be used and shared, or whether they wished to check their data before being added to our reports/outputs. In these occasions, selected text/quotes that may be potentially identifying were shared in advance via email, and the participant asked to respond within 2 weeks to confirm whether any retractions or amendments were required. In line with funder requirements, informed consent was gained from all participants to retain their data for re-use. Participants were told that if they take part in the project, non-identifying data will be shared in open, online data repositories. Participants contributing personal data had to sign a consent form which included a section related to data share. Interview Schedule A detailed interview schedule including an introduction and reiterate key information was used. Interviews were started with an opening question regarding participants views on the most important issues for maternity and neonatal care provision that have come out of COVID-19. Then participants were asked about changes/adaptations to service delivery, decision making processes, communication and implementation, impact, barriers and facilitators, and recommendations and sustainability. ETHICS In the Netherlands the study was submitted to the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the VU University Medical Centre (reference number 2020.345). In the United Kingdom the study was submitted to University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) Committee for Ethics and Integrity (HealthReview Panel), which approved this study (HEALTH_0079).