Linda Martin1, Eileen K Hutton2, Janneke T Gitsels-van der Wal3, Evelien R Spelten4, Fleur Kuiper5, Monique T R Pereboom6, Sandra van Dulmen7. 1. Department of Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: linda.martin@INHOLLAND.nl. 2. Department of Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Obstetrics & Gynecology, Midwifery Education Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: huttone@mcmaster.ca. 3. Department of Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Faculty of Theology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: evelienspelten@yahoo.com. 4. Department of Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Jt.vanderwal@vumc.nl. 5. Department of Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Health Sciences, Buskerud University College, Drammen, Norway; Obstetrics & Gynecology, Midwifery Education Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Faculty of Theology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Kuiper.fleur@gmail.nl. 6. Department of Midwifery Science, AVAG and the EMGO(+) Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: m.pereboom@vumc.nl. 7. NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Health Sciences, Buskerud University College, Drammen, Norway. Electronic address: S.vanDulmen@nivel.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests is conceptualised as having both Health Education (HE) and Decision-Making Support (DMS) functions. Building and maintaining a client-midwife relation (CMR) is seen as a necessary condition for enabling these two counselling functions. However, little is known about how these functions are fulfilled in daily practice. This study aims to describe the relative expression of the antenatal counselling functions; to describe the ratio of client versus midwife conversational contribution and to get insight into clients' characteristics, which are associated with midwives' expressions of the functions of antenatal counselling. DESIGN: exploratory video-observational study. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 269 videotaped antenatal counselling sessions for congenital anomaly tests provided by 20 midwives within six Dutch practices. MEASUREMENTS: we used an adapted version of the Roter Interaction Analysis System to code the client-midwife communication. Multilevel linear regression analyses were used to analyse associations between clients' characteristics and midwives' expressions of antenatal counselling in practice. FINDINGS: most utterances made during counselling were coded as HE (41%); a quarter as DMS (23%) and 36% as CMR. Midwives contributed the most to the HE compared to clients or their partners (91% versus 9%) and less to the DMS function of counselling (61% versus 39%). Multilevel analyses showed an independent association between parity and shorter duration of antenatal counselling; (β=-3.01; p<0.001). The amount of utterances concerning HE and DMS during counselling of multipara was less compared to nulliparous. KEY CONCLUSIONS: antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests by midwives is focused on giving HE compared to DMS. The relatively low contribution of clients during DMS might indicate poor DMS given by midwives. Counselling of multipara was significantly shorter than counselling of nulliparous; multiparae received less HE as well as DMS compared to nulliparous women. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: our findings should encourage midwives to reflect on the process of antenatal counselling they offer with regards to the way they address the three antenatal counselling functions during counselling of nulliparous women compared to multiparae.
OBJECTIVE: antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests is conceptualised as having both Health Education (HE) and Decision-Making Support (DMS) functions. Building and maintaining a client-midwife relation (CMR) is seen as a necessary condition for enabling these two counselling functions. However, little is known about how these functions are fulfilled in daily practice. This study aims to describe the relative expression of the antenatal counselling functions; to describe the ratio of client versus midwife conversational contribution and to get insight into clients' characteristics, which are associated with midwives' expressions of the functions of antenatal counselling. DESIGN: exploratory video-observational study. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 269 videotaped antenatal counselling sessions for congenital anomaly tests provided by 20 midwives within six Dutch practices. MEASUREMENTS: we used an adapted version of the Roter Interaction Analysis System to code the client-midwife communication. Multilevel linear regression analyses were used to analyse associations between clients' characteristics and midwives' expressions of antenatal counselling in practice. FINDINGS: most utterances made during counselling were coded as HE (41%); a quarter as DMS (23%) and 36% as CMR. Midwives contributed the most to the HE compared to clients or their partners (91% versus 9%) and less to the DMS function of counselling (61% versus 39%). Multilevel analyses showed an independent association between parity and shorter duration of antenatal counselling; (β=-3.01; p<0.001). The amount of utterances concerning HE and DMS during counselling of multipara was less compared to nulliparous. KEY CONCLUSIONS: antenatal counselling for congenital anomaly tests by midwives is focused on giving HE compared to DMS. The relatively low contribution of clients during DMS might indicate poor DMS given by midwives. Counselling of multipara was significantly shorter than counselling of nulliparous; multiparae received less HE as well as DMS compared to nulliparous women. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: our findings should encourage midwives to reflect on the process of antenatal counselling they offer with regards to the way they address the three antenatal counselling functions during counselling of nulliparous women compared to multiparae.
Authors: Neeltje M T H Crombag; Hennie Boeije; Rita Iedema-Kuiper; Peter C J I Schielen; Gerard H A Visser; Jozien M Bensing Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Iris M Bakkeren; Adriana Kater-Kuipers; Eline M Bunnik; Attie T J I Go; Aad Tibben; Inez D de Beaufort; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Sam R Riedijk Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Jo Hilder; Maria Stubbe; Lindsay Macdonald; Peter Abels; Anthony C Dowell Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 3.007