Helle Johnsen1, Jette Aaroe Clausen2, Dorte Hvidtjørn3, Mette Juhl2, Hanne Kristine Hegaard4. 1. Midwifery Program, Metropolitan University College, Sigurdsgade 26, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. Electronic address: hejo@phmetropol.dk. 2. Midwifery Program, Metropolitan University College, Sigurdsgade 26, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. 3. Clinical Institute, Southern Danish University, Winsløwparken 19, 3. Sal, 5000 Odense C, Denmark. 4. The Research Unit Women's and Children's Health, the Juliane Marie Centre, For Women, Children and Reproduction, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information and communication technologies are increasingly used in health care to meet demands of efficiency, safety and patient-centered care. At a large Danish regional hospital, women report their physical, mental health and personal needs prior to their first antenatal visit. Little is known about the process of self-reporting health, and how this information is managed during the client-professional meeting. AIM: To explore women's experiences of self-reporting their health status and personal needs online prior to the first midwifery visit, and how this information may affect the meeting between the woman and the midwife. METHOD: Fifteen semi-structured interviews with pregnant women and 62h of observation of the first midwifery visit were carried out. Conventional content analysis was used to analyse data. FINDINGS: Three main categories were identified; 'Reporting personal health', 'Reducing and generating risk', and 'Bridges and gaps'. Compared to reporting physical health information, more advanced levels of health literacy might be needed to self-assess mental health and personal needs. Self-reporting health can induce feelings of being normal but also increase perceptions of pregnancy-related risk and concerns of being judged by the midwife. Although women want to have their self-reported information addressed, they also have a need for the midwife's expert knowledge and advice, and of not being perceived as a demanding client. CONCLUSION: Self-reported health prior to the first midwifery visit appears to have both intended and unintended effects. During the midwifery visit, women find themselves navigating between competing needs in relation to use of their self-reported information.
BACKGROUND: Information and communication technologies are increasingly used in health care to meet demands of efficiency, safety and patient-centered care. At a large Danish regional hospital, women report their physical, mental health and personal needs prior to their first antenatal visit. Little is known about the process of self-reporting health, and how this information is managed during the client-professional meeting. AIM: To explore women's experiences of self-reporting their health status and personal needs online prior to the first midwifery visit, and how this information may affect the meeting between the woman and the midwife. METHOD: Fifteen semi-structured interviews with pregnant women and 62h of observation of the first midwifery visit were carried out. Conventional content analysis was used to analyse data. FINDINGS: Three main categories were identified; 'Reporting personal health', 'Reducing and generating risk', and 'Bridges and gaps'. Compared to reporting physical health information, more advanced levels of health literacy might be needed to self-assess mental health and personal needs. Self-reporting health can induce feelings of being normal but also increase perceptions of pregnancy-related risk and concerns of being judged by the midwife. Although women want to have their self-reported information addressed, they also have a need for the midwife's expert knowledge and advice, and of not being perceived as a demanding client. CONCLUSION: Self-reported health prior to the first midwifery visit appears to have both intended and unintended effects. During the midwifery visit, women find themselves navigating between competing needs in relation to use of their self-reported information.
Authors: Sarah Fredsted Villadsen; Hajer Hadi; Israa Ismail; Richard H Osborne; Claus Thorn Ekstrøm; Lars Kayser Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Yolanda Álvarez-Pérez; Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez; Amado Rivero-Santanta; Alezandra Torres-Castaño; Ana Toledo-Chávarri; Andrea Duarte-Díaz; Vinita Mahtani-Chugani; María Dolores Marrero-Díaz; Alessia Montanari; Sabina Tangerini; Carina González-González; Michelle Perello; Pedro Serrano-Aguilar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.390