| Literature DB >> 20640028 |
Anita Wikberg1, Terese Bondas.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to explore and describe a patient perspective in research on intercultural caring in maternity care. In total, 40 studies are synthesized using Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnography method. The following opposite metaphors were found: caring versus non-caring; language and communication problems versus information and choice; access to medical and technological care versus incompetence; acculturation: preserving the original culture versus adapting to a new culture; professional caring relationship versus family and community involvement; caring is important for well-being and health versus conflicts cause interrupted care; vulnerable women with painful memories versus racism. Alice in Wonderland emerged as an overarching metaphor to describe intercultural caring in maternity care. Furthermore, intercultural caring is seen in different dimensions of uniqueness, context, culture, and universality. There are specific cultural and maternity care features in intercultural caring. There is an inner core of caring consisting of respect, presence, and listening as well as external factors such as economy and organization that impact on intercultural caring. Moreover, legal status of the patient, as well as power relationships and racism, influences intercultural caring. Further meta-syntheses about well-documented intercultural phenomena and ethnic groups, as well as empirical studies about current phenomena, are suggested.Entities:
Keywords: Intercultural; caring; maternity care; meta-ethnography; meta-synthesis
Year: 2010 PMID: 20640028 PMCID: PMC2879866 DOI: 10.3402/qhw.v5i1.4648
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being ISSN: 1748-2623
Studies describing intercultural caring in maternity care included in meta-synthesis.
| Author, year of Publication and country of study | Sample of informant | Culture or country | Data collection | Data analyses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beine, Fullerton, Palinkas, and Anders ( | 14 women | Somalia | Focus group, interviews | Content analysis |
| Berggren, Bergström, and Edberg ( | 21 women | Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan | Interviews | Latent content analysis |
| Berry ( | 16 women, 34 other | Mexican-American | Observation and interviews | Ethnonursing method |
| Bulman and McCourt ( | 12 women + other | Somali | Semi-structured interviews, narrative approach, individual focus group | Texts coded and sorted to generate themes |
| Chalmers and Omer-Hashi ( | 388 women | Somali | Interviews, four open-ended questions about birth itself | Descriptive content analysis + quantitative analysis of frequency of women's comments |
| Cheung ( | 10 women, 55 other | China | Semi-structured and unstructured interviews, participant observation two case comparison, group discussions + own experience | Comparative method |
| Chu ( | 25 women | China, Hong Kong, Taiwan | In-depth semi-structured, face-to-face and telephone interviews, field visit, focus group | Not specified (ethnography) |
| Davies and Bath ( | 13 women | Somali | In-depth study, exploratory, focus group, semi-structured interviews | Variation of the constant comparative method |
| Essén et al. ( | 15 women | Somali | Semi-structured open-ended interviews | Systematic text analysis |
| Granot et al. ( | 19 women | Ethiopian | Interviews | Constant comparative method |
| Herrel et al. ( | 14 refugee women | Somali | Two focus group discussions, interview guide | Grouped into themes |
| Ito and Sharts-Hopko ( | Five women | Japanese | Open-ended interviews in home or by Telephone | Comparative content method |
| Jambunathan and Stewart ( | 52 women | Hmong | Semi-structured interviews | Qualitative data “sensitization“ method |
| Jeppesen and Tamer ( | 12 women | Turkish | Partly structured interviews | Not specified |
| Liamputtong and Watson ( | 18 women | Cambodian, Lao, Vietnamese | In-depth interviews | Thematic analysis method, ethnographic |
| Lundberg and Gerezgiher ( | 15 women | Eritrean | Semi-structured and open questions, in-depth interviews | Thematic analysis, ethnographic approach |
| Maputle and Jali ( | 24 women | N. Sotho, Tsonga, Venda | Semi-structured in-depth interviews, unstructured conversations | Reduction, data display and conclusion drawing/verification, ethnographic |
| McCourt and Pearce ( | 20 women | Bl. Carribean, African, South + East Asian, Mediterranean, Middle Eastern | Semi-structured narrative interviews | Texts analysed by open coding and grouping into conceptual areas and linking themes, NUD*IST, similar to grounded theory |
| McLeish ( | 33 women asylum(s) | 19 countries not specified | Semi-structured interviews | Not specified |
| Morgan ( | 13 women, 33 other | African American | Interviews, participant observations | Ethnonursing |
| Nabb ( | 10 women asylum(s), five other | Algeria, Congo, Angola, Nigeria, Somalia, Iraq | Informal unstructured and semi-structured interviews | Not specified |
| Nøttveit ( | Seven women | Pakistani | Interviews | Phenomenological, Giorgi's analysing method |
| Ny, Plantin, Karlsson, and Dykes ( | 13 women | Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon | Focus groups and individual semi-structured interviews | Content analysis |
| Pearce ( | 21 women | Puerto Rico, Dom. Rep., C. Am., PR + S. American | In-depth interviews | Constant comparison analysis |
| Reid and Taylor ( | 13 women | Traveller | Unstructured non-directive interviews | Data-analysis was guided by an established framework |
| Reitmanova and Gustafson ( | Six women | Five countries | In-depth semi-structured interviews | Two step process of content analysis |
| Rice ( | 27 women | Hmong | Individual in-depth interviews | Thematic analysis, ethnographic |
| Rice and Naksook ( | 30 women | Thai | Interviews, participant observations | Thematic analysis, ethnographic |
| Rice, Naksook, and Watson ( | 26 women | Thai | Interviews, participant observations | Thematic analysis, ethnographic |
| Sharts-Hopko ( | 20 women | American | Interviews | Comparative content analysis |
| Small, Rice, Yelland, and Lumely ( | 60 of 318 women | Vietnamese, Turkish, Filipino | Interviews, schedule adapted from postal questionnaire. Qualitative responses to open-ended questions | Statistical + qualitative analysis, quotations illustrating most common themes identified in coding |
| Tandon, Parillo, and Keefer ( | 125 women | Hispanic | Semi-structured interviews | Statistical + qualitative Atlas.ti 4.1, descriptive open coding, inferential, and explanatory pattern coding |
| Templeton, Velleman, Persaud, and Milner ( | Six women, 19 + other | Bangladeshi, Indian, Portugal + mixed race | Semi-structured interviews, telephone and face-to-face, focus groups | Qualitative analysis, descriptive thematic analysis |
| Tsianakias and Liamputtong ( | 15 women | Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Malaysia, Singapore, Morocco, Pakistan | In-depth interviews | Thematic analysis |
| Vangen, Johansen, Sundby, Traeen, and Stray-Pedersen ( | 23 women, 36 other | Somali | In-depth interviews | Thematic analysis, interpretation |
| Wiklund, Aden, Högberg, Wikman, and Dahlgren ( | Nine women, seven men | Somali | Semi-structured or thematized interviews | Grounded theory technique |
| Woollett and Dosanjh-Matwala ( | 32 women | Indian subcontinent | In-depth interviews | Qualitative and quantitative content analysis |
| Woollett and Dosanjh-Matwala ( | 32 women | Asian | Semi-structured interviews | Not specified: (Quantitative and qualitative content analysis?) |
| Yelland et al. ( | 60 of 318 women | Vietnamese, Turkish, Filipino | Interviews, schedule adapted from postal questionnaire | Statistic + two open questions collated and coded to common themes |
| Yeo, Fetters, and Maeda ( | 11 couples | Japanese | In-depth interviews | Ethnographic method |
Figure 1Opposite metaphors found in the material.