Michael C Klein1, Janusz Kaczorowski2, Stephen J C Hearps2, Jocelyn Tomkinson3, Nazli Baradaran3, Wendy A Hall4, Patricia McNiven5, Rollin Brant6, Jalana Grant7, Sharon Dore8, Anne Brasset-Latulippe9, William D Fraser10. 1. Developmental Neuroscience and Child Health, Child and Family Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC; Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC; Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC. 2. Developmental Neuroscience and Child Health, Child and Family Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC; Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC. 3. Developmental Neuroscience and Child Health, Child and Family Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC. 4. School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC. 5. Midwifery Education Program, Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton ON. 6. Developmental Neuroscience and Child Health, Child and Family Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC; Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC. 7. South Community Birth Program, Vancouver BC. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton ON. 9. Developmental Neuroscience and Child Health, Child and Family Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC; Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Université de Montreal, Montreal QC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe Canadian nulliparous women's attitudes to birth technology and their roles in childbirth. METHODS: A large convenience sample of low-risk women expecting their first birth was recruited by posters in laboratories, at the offices of obstetricians, family physicians, and midwives, at prenatal classes, and through web-based advertising and invited to complete a paper or web-based questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 1318 women completing the questionnaire, 95% did so via the web-based method; 13.2% of respondents were in the first trimester, 39.8% were in the second trimester, and 47.0% in the third. Overall, 42.6% were under the care of an obstetrician, 29.3% a family physician, and 28.1% a registered midwife. The sample included mainly well-educated, middle-class women. The planned place of giving birth ranged from home to hospital, and from rural centres to large city hospitals. Eighteen percent planned to engage a doula. Women attending obstetricians reported attitudes more favourable to the use of birth technology and less supportive of women's roles in their own delivery, regardless of the trimester in which the survey was completed. Those women attending midwives reported attitudes less favourable to the use of technology at delivery and more supportive of women's roles. Family practice patients' opinions fell between the other two groups. For eight of the questions, "I don't know" (IDK) responses exceeded 15%. These IDK responses were most frequent for questions regarding risks and benefits of epidural analgesia, Caesarean section, and episiotomy. Women in the care of midwives consistently used IDK options less frequently than those cared for by physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the type of care provider they attended, many women reported uncertainty about the benefits and risks of common procedures used at childbirth. When grouped by the type of care provider, in all trimesters, women held different views across a range of childbirth issues, suggesting that the three groups of providers were caring for different populations with different attitudes and expectations.
OBJECTIVE: To describe Canadian nulliparous women's attitudes to birth technology and their roles in childbirth. METHODS: A large convenience sample of low-risk women expecting their first birth was recruited by posters in laboratories, at the offices of obstetricians, family physicians, and midwives, at prenatal classes, and through web-based advertising and invited to complete a paper or web-based questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 1318 women completing the questionnaire, 95% did so via the web-based method; 13.2% of respondents were in the first trimester, 39.8% were in the second trimester, and 47.0% in the third. Overall, 42.6% were under the care of an obstetrician, 29.3% a family physician, and 28.1% a registered midwife. The sample included mainly well-educated, middle-class women. The planned place of giving birth ranged from home to hospital, and from rural centres to large city hospitals. Eighteen percent planned to engage a doula. Women attending obstetricians reported attitudes more favourable to the use of birth technology and less supportive of women's roles in their own delivery, regardless of the trimester in which the survey was completed. Those women attending midwives reported attitudes less favourable to the use of technology at delivery and more supportive of women's roles. Family practice patients' opinions fell between the other two groups. For eight of the questions, "I don't know" (IDK) responses exceeded 15%. These IDK responses were most frequent for questions regarding risks and benefits of epidural analgesia, Caesarean section, and episiotomy. Women in the care of midwives consistently used IDK options less frequently than those cared for by physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the type of care provider they attended, many women reported uncertainty about the benefits and risks of common procedures used at childbirth. When grouped by the type of care provider, in all trimesters, women held different views across a range of childbirth issues, suggesting that the three groups of providers were caring for different populations with different attitudes and expectations.
Authors: Tamar M van Haaren-ten Haken; Marijke Hendrix; Luc J Smits; Marianne J Nieuwenhuijze; Johan L Severens; Raymond G de Vries; Jan G Nijhuis Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Emily White VanGompel; Susan Perez; Avisek Datta; Chi Wang; Valerie Cape; Elliott Main Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 3.402