Literature DB >> 24282851

Women's perceptions of childbirth risk and place of birth.

Mary Regan1, Katie McElroy.   

Abstract

In the United States, clinical interventions such as epidurals, intravenous infusions, oxytocin, and intrauterine pressure catheters are used almost routinely in births in the hospital setting, despite evidence that the overutilization of such interventions likely plays a key role in increasing the need for cesarean section (CS).' In 2010, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 32.8 percent of births in the U.S. were by CS.2 The U.S. National Institutes of Health has reported that CS increases avoidable maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.3To increase understanding of what might motivate the overuse of CS in the U.S., we investigated the factors that influenced women's decision making around childbirth, because women's conscious and unconscious choices about giving birth could influence whether they would choose or allow delivery by CS. In this article, we report findings about women's decisions related to place of birth-at home or in a hospital. We found that choosing a place of birth was significant in how women in our study attempted to mitigate their perceptions of the risks of childbirth for themselves and their infant. Concern for the safety of the infant was a central, driving factor in the decisions women made about giving birth, and this concern heightened their perceptions of the risks of childbirth. Heightened perceptions of risk about the safety of the fetus during childbirth were found to affect women's ability to accurately assess the risk of using clinical interventions such as the time of admission, epidural anesthesia, oxytocin, or cesarean birth, which has important implications for clinical practice, prenatal education, perinatal research, medical decision making, and informed consent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24282851

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Ethics        ISSN: 1046-7890


  7 in total

1.  Women's Preferences for Birthing Hospital in Denmark: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez; Morten Raun Mørkbak; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Niels Uldbjerg; Rikke Søgaard
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Being in a safe and thus secure place, the core of early labour: A secondary analysis in a Swedish context.

Authors:  Ing-Marie Carlsson
Journal:  Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being       Date:  2016-05-10

3.  Pregnancy related anxiety and general anxious or depressed mood and the choice for birth setting: a secondary data-analysis of the DELIVER study.

Authors:  A B Witteveen; P De Cock; A C Huizink; A De Jonge; T Klomp; M Westerneng; C C Geerts
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-11-22       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  The Mother's Autonomy in Decision Making (MADM) scale: Patient-led development and psychometric testing of a new instrument to evaluate experience of maternity care.

Authors:  Saraswathi Vedam; Kathrin Stoll; Kelsey Martin; Nicholas Rubashkin; Sarah Partridge; Dana Thordarson; Ganga Jolicoeur
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-23       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Mothers' and fathers' sense of security in the context of pregnancy, childbirth and the postnatal period: an integrative literature review.

Authors:  Therese Werner-Bierwisch; Christiane Pinkert; Karin Niessen; Sabine Metzing; Claudia Hellmers
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 3.007

6.  Is fear of childbirth related to the woman's preferred location for giving birth? A Dutch low-risk cohort study.

Authors:  Anne-Marie Sluijs; Marc P H D Cleiren; Jan M M van Lith; Barbro Wijma; Klaas Wijma
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 3.689

7.  Perceptions of risk in pregnancy with chronic disease: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Ralston; Priscilla Smith; Joseph Chilcot; Sergio A Silverio; Kate Bramham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.