U.S. Healthcare Provider Views and Practices Regarding Planned Birth Setting.

Q3 Medicine
Natalie R Shovlin-Bankole, Jessica L Bienstock, Ha Vi Nguyen, Marielle S Gross
{"title":"U.S. Healthcare Provider Views and Practices Regarding Planned Birth Setting.","authors":"Natalie R Shovlin-Bankole, Jessica L Bienstock, Ha Vi Nguyen, Marielle S Gross","doi":"10.1086/728142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>AbstractBackground: Little is known about U.S. healthcare provider views and practices regarding evidence, counseling, and shared decision-making about in-hospital versus out-of-hospital birth settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted 19 in-depth, semistructured, qualitative interviews of eight obstetricians, eight midwives, and three pediatricians from across the United States. Interviews explored healthcare providers' interpretation of the current evidence and their personal and professional experiences with childbirth within the existing medical, ethical, and legal context in the United States.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Themes emerged concerning risks and benefits, decision-making, and patient-provider power dynamics. Collectively, the narratives illuminated fundamental ideological tensions between in- and out-of-hospital providers arising from divergent assignment of value to described risks and benefits. The majority of physicians focused on U.S.-specific data demonstrating increased neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with delayed access to hospital-based interventions, thereby justifying hospital birth as the standard of care. By contrast, midwives emphasized data demonstrating fewer interventions and superior maternal and neonatal outcomes in high-income European countries, where out-of-hospital birth is more common for low-risk birthing people. A key gap in counseling was revealed, as no interviewees offered anticipatory counseling regarding birth setting options. Providers directly and indirectly illustrated the propensity for asymmetric power relations between birth providers and pregnant people, especially in hospital settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The narratives highlight the common goal of optimizing maternal and neonatal outcomes despite tensions arising from divergent prioritization of specific maternal and neonatal risks. Our findings suggest opportunities to foster collaboration and optimize outcomes via mutual respect and improved integration of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"35 1","pages":"23-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/728142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractBackground: Little is known about U.S. healthcare provider views and practices regarding evidence, counseling, and shared decision-making about in-hospital versus out-of-hospital birth settings.

Methods: We conducted 19 in-depth, semistructured, qualitative interviews of eight obstetricians, eight midwives, and three pediatricians from across the United States. Interviews explored healthcare providers' interpretation of the current evidence and their personal and professional experiences with childbirth within the existing medical, ethical, and legal context in the United States.

Results: Themes emerged concerning risks and benefits, decision-making, and patient-provider power dynamics. Collectively, the narratives illuminated fundamental ideological tensions between in- and out-of-hospital providers arising from divergent assignment of value to described risks and benefits. The majority of physicians focused on U.S.-specific data demonstrating increased neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with delayed access to hospital-based interventions, thereby justifying hospital birth as the standard of care. By contrast, midwives emphasized data demonstrating fewer interventions and superior maternal and neonatal outcomes in high-income European countries, where out-of-hospital birth is more common for low-risk birthing people. A key gap in counseling was revealed, as no interviewees offered anticipatory counseling regarding birth setting options. Providers directly and indirectly illustrated the propensity for asymmetric power relations between birth providers and pregnant people, especially in hospital settings.

Conclusions: The narratives highlight the common goal of optimizing maternal and neonatal outcomes despite tensions arising from divergent prioritization of specific maternal and neonatal risks. Our findings suggest opportunities to foster collaboration and optimize outcomes via mutual respect and improved integration of care.

美国医疗服务提供者对计划内分娩的看法和做法。
摘要背景:关于院内与院外分娩环境的证据、咨询和共同决策,美国医疗服务提供者的观点和做法鲜为人知:我们对美国各地的 8 名产科医生、8 名助产士和 3 名儿科医生进行了 19 次深入的半结构式定性访谈。访谈探讨了医疗服务提供者对现有证据的解释,以及他们在美国现有医疗、伦理和法律背景下的个人和专业分娩经验:结果:访谈中出现的主题涉及风险与益处、决策以及患者与医护人员之间的权力关系。总体而言,这些叙述揭示了院内和院外医疗服务提供者之间因对所述风险和益处的价值分配不同而产生的根本性意识形态紧张关系。大多数医生关注的是美国的具体数据,这些数据表明新生儿发病率和死亡率与延迟接受医院干预有关,从而证明医院分娩作为护理标准是合理的。与此相反,助产士强调的数据显示,在高收入的欧洲国家,干预措施较少,孕产妇和新生儿的预后较好,而在这些国家,院外分娩在低风险分娩人群中更为常见。由于没有受访者提供有关分娩环境选择的预期咨询,这暴露了咨询方面的一个关键差距。接生人员直接或间接地说明了接生人员与孕妇之间权力关系不对称的倾向,尤其是在医院环境中:这些叙述强调了优化孕产妇和新生儿预后的共同目标,尽管由于对特定孕产妇和新生儿风险的优先排序不同而产生了紧张关系。我们的研究结果表明,有机会通过相互尊重和改善护理一体化来促进合作和优化结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信