Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38648219›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Shroud waving self-determination: A qualitative analysis of the moral and epistemic dimensions of obstetric violence in the Netherlands.

Rodante van der Waal, Inge van Nistelrooij

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Rodante van der WaalCare Ethics Department, University for Humanistic Studies, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2152-2695
Inge van NistelrooijCare Ethics Department, University for Humanistic Studies, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9053-7279

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Obstetric violence is an urgent global problem. Recently, several studies have appeared on obstetric violence in the Netherlands, indicating that it is a more widespread phenomenon in Dutch maternity care than commonly thought. At the same time, there has been very little public outrage over these studies. The objective of this qualitative research is to gain insight into the working and normalization of obstetric violence by focusing on the moral and epistemic injustices that both facilitate obstetric violence and make it look acceptable. Following the study design of Responsive Evaluation, interviews, homogenous, and heterogenous focus groups were done in three phases, with thirty-one participants, consisting of ten mothers, eleven midwives, five doulas and five midwives in training. All participants were already critically engaged with the topic, which was a selection criterion to be able to bring the existing depth of knowledge on this topic of people in the field to the fore. Data was analyzed through Thematic Analysis. We elaborate on two groups of results. First, we discuss the forms of obstetric violence most commonly mentioned by the participants, which were vaginal examinations, episiotomies, and pelvic floor support. Second, we demonstrate two major themes that concern practices related to moral and epistemic injustice: 1) 'Playing the dead baby card', with the sub-themes 'shroud waving', 'hidden agenda', and 'normalizing obstetric violence'; and 2) 'Troubling consent', with sub-themes 'not being asked for consent', 'saying "yes"', 'saying "no"', and 'giving up resistance'. While epistemic injustice has been analyzed in relation to obstetric violence, moral injustice has not yet been conceptualized as a fundamental part of both the practice and the justification of obstetric violence. This research hence contributes not only to the better understanding of obstetric violence in the Netherlands, but also to a further theorization of this specific form of gender-based violence.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchAdultDelivery, ObstetricFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMidwiferyMoralsNetherlandsPersonal AutonomyPregnancyViolence

Identifiers

PMID38648219
PMCPMC11034656

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.