Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29246129›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017

Women's motivations for choosing a high risk birth setting against medical advice in the Netherlands: a qualitative analysis.

Martine Hollander, Esteriek de Miranda, Jeroen van Dillen, Irene de Graaf, Frank Vandenbussche, Lianne Holten

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Martine HollanderDepartment of Obstetrics, Radboud University Medical Center, Brouwketel 4, 6681 GT Bemmel, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. martine.hollander@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2279-086X
Esteriek de MirandaDepartment of Obstetrics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jeroen van DillenDepartment of Obstetrics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Irene de GraafDepartment of Obstetrics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Frank VandenbusscheDepartment of Obstetrics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Lianne HoltenAVAG school of midwifery and VU/EMGO research institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam Public Health · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome births in high risk pregnancies and unassisted childbirth seem to be increasing in the Netherlands. Until now there were no qualitative data on women's motivations for these choices in the Dutch maternity care system where integrated midwifery care and home birth are regular options in low risk pregnancies. We aimed to examine women's motivations for birthing outside the system in order to provide medical professionals with insight and recommendations regarding their interactions with women who have birth wishes that go against medical advice.

methodsAn exploratory qualitative research design with a constructivist approach and a grounded theory method were used. In-depth interviews were performed with 28 women on their motivations for going against medical advice in choosing a high risk childbirth setting. Open, axial and selective coding of the interview data was done in order to generate themes. A focus group was held for a member check of the findings.

resultsFour main themes were found: 1) Discrepancy in the definition of superior knowledge, 2) Need for autonomy and trust in the birth process, 3) Conflict during negotiation of the birth plan, and 4) Search for different care. One overarching theme emerged that covered all other themes: Fear. This theme refers both to the participants' fear (of interventions and negative consequences of their choices) and to the providers' fear (of a bad outcome). Where for some women it was a positive choice, for the majority of women in this study the choice for a home birth in a high risk pregnancy or an unassisted childbirth was a negative one. Negative choices were due to previous or current negative experiences with maternity care and/or conflict surrounding the birth plan.

conclusionsThe main goal of working with women whose birthing choices do not align with medical advice should not be to coerce them into the framework of protocols and guidelines but to prevent negative choices. Recommendations for maternity caregivers can be summarized as: 1) Rethink risk discourse, 2) Respect a woman's trust in the birth process and her autonomous choice, 3) Have a flexible approach to negotiating the birth plan using the model of shared decision making, 4) Be aware of alternative delivery care providers and other sources of information used by women, and 5) Provide maternity care without spreading or using fear.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMotivationAdultDecision MakingDelivery, ObstetricFearFemaleFocus GroupsGrounded TheoryHumansNetherlandsParturitionPregnancyPregnancy, High-RiskQualitative ResearchCare provisonFreebirthHome birthMidwivesObstetriciansPatient satisfactionRiskUnassisted childbirth

Identifiers

PMID29246129
PMCPMC5732454
OpenAlexW2775575314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.