Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWatkins, V
dc.contributor.authorNagle, C
dc.contributor.authorKent, B
dc.contributor.authorStreet, M
dc.contributor.authorHutchinson, AM
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T14:01:23Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T14:01:23Z
dc.date.issued2022-10
dc.identifier.issn0266-6138
dc.identifier.issn1878-1799
dc.identifier.other103420
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/19483
dc.description.abstract

Poor interprofessional collaboration and lack of decision-making with women have been identified as being detrimental to the quality, safety, and experience of maternity care. The aim of the Labouring Together study was to explore childbearing women's preferences for and experiences of collaboration and control over decision-making in maternity care. Design A sequential, mixed-method, multi-site case study approach was used to explore the perceptions and experiences of childbearing women regarding collaboration and decision-making. Women's preferred role for decision-making compared to the actual experiences, and the influences upon their preferences and experiences of collaboration were explored using semi-structured interviews. An inductive approach was used for qualitative analysis of interviews, and cross-case analyses were conducted using replication logic. Setting Postnatal wards of 1 private and 3 public maternity services in both metropolitan and regional Victoria, Australia. Participants Postnatal women, over the age of 18 years (n=182). Findings Half (48.3%) of the participants indicated a preference for a shared decision-making role and 35% preferred an active role. Only 16.7% participants indicated a preference for a passive role, however 24.4% of women reported experiencing a passive decision-making role during their maternity care. Statistically significant differences were also identified between preferences for and experiences of decision-making among women who chose the private obstetrician model of maternity care compared to the public maternity care system. Negative impacts upon women's autonomy over decision-making included: poor access to midwifery models of care; poor access to relational continuity of care; poor understanding of the rights of the woman; inadequate information for women about the risks and benefits of all proposed interventions; and a bureaucratic style of decision-making based upon a dominant discourse of risk avoidance that could ultimately veto the woman's choice. Key conclusions Despite evidence of the benefits for women of having autonomy over decision-making in their own care, fundamental barriers were identified that hindered women's participation in collaboration in maternity care. Shared decision-making with childbearing women is not routine practice in maternity care in Victoria, Australia. Implications for practice Relational continuity of care is imperative to promote the autonomy of childbearing women and an environment conducive to women's active engagement in maternity care and participation in shared decision-making.

dc.format.extent103420-103420
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.subjectCollaboration
dc.subjectDecisional-control
dc.subjectMaternity care
dc.subjectMixed methods
dc.subjectShared decision-making
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectLabor, Obstetric
dc.subjectMaternal Health Services
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectMidwifery
dc.subjectObstetrics
dc.subjectPregnancy
dc.subjectQualitative Research
dc.subjectVictoria
dc.titleLabouring Together: Women's experiences of “Getting the care that I want and need” in maternity care
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeMeeting Abstract
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35849913
plymouth.volume113
plymouth.publisher-urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2022.103420
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalMidwifery
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.midw.2022.103420
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Nursing and Midwifery
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research (PIHR)
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeScotland
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-07-01
dc.rights.embargodate2023-7-2
dc.identifier.eissn1878-1799
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.midw.2022.103420
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV