“In an ideal world”: A qualitative exploration of shared decision-making and weight stigma in antenatal care

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
{"title":"“In an ideal world”: A qualitative exploration of shared decision-making and weight stigma in antenatal care","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Shared decision-making supports women’s autonomy in antenatal care, but several barriers to shared decision-making have been identified in practice. Women with high body mass index experience a higher rate of interventions, which could provide more opportunities for shared decision-making in antenatal care. However, weight stigma may exist as a barrier to shared decision-making, limiting access to collaborative care.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To explore how shared decision-making is implemented and whether body mass index influences maternity clinicians' use of shared decision-making when providing antenatal care for women.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Maternity clinicians were recruited via purposive sampling from two sites in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Twelve maternity clinicians consented to participate. Three themes and ten sub-themes were identified. The themes were: 1) Whose choice is it anyway? 2) Pregnancy as risky 3) Excess weight as a diseased state.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>Maternity clinicians in this study view pregnancy through a risk management lens that complicates women’s involvement in decision-making, demonstrating inherent beliefs that may further limit options for women with high body mass index.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Shared decision-making is difficult to implement in the current antenatal clinic setting and requires significant structural consideration to become a reality for women. Clinicians may inadvertently limit meaningful opportunities to engage in shared decision-making with women with high body mass index due to preconceived perceptions of risk and stigmatising beliefs about women with high body mass index.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48868,"journal":{"name":"Women and Birth","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871519224002841/pdfft?md5=72f9da601241f6d608b11f8490fcb64d&pid=1-s2.0-S1871519224002841-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women and Birth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871519224002841","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Shared decision-making supports women’s autonomy in antenatal care, but several barriers to shared decision-making have been identified in practice. Women with high body mass index experience a higher rate of interventions, which could provide more opportunities for shared decision-making in antenatal care. However, weight stigma may exist as a barrier to shared decision-making, limiting access to collaborative care.

Aim

To explore how shared decision-making is implemented and whether body mass index influences maternity clinicians' use of shared decision-making when providing antenatal care for women.

Methods

Maternity clinicians were recruited via purposive sampling from two sites in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Findings

Twelve maternity clinicians consented to participate. Three themes and ten sub-themes were identified. The themes were: 1) Whose choice is it anyway? 2) Pregnancy as risky 3) Excess weight as a diseased state.

Discussion

Maternity clinicians in this study view pregnancy through a risk management lens that complicates women’s involvement in decision-making, demonstrating inherent beliefs that may further limit options for women with high body mass index.

Conclusion

Shared decision-making is difficult to implement in the current antenatal clinic setting and requires significant structural consideration to become a reality for women. Clinicians may inadvertently limit meaningful opportunities to engage in shared decision-making with women with high body mass index due to preconceived perceptions of risk and stigmatising beliefs about women with high body mass index.

"理想世界":产前护理中的共同决策和体重耻辱的定性探索
背景共同决策支持妇女在产前护理中的自主权,但在实践中也发现了一些阻碍共同决策的因素。体重指数高的妇女接受干预的比例较高,这为产前护理中的共同决策提供了更多机会。目的 探讨如何实施共同决策,以及体重指数是否会影响产科临床医生在为产妇提供产前护理时使用共同决策。方法 在澳大利亚墨尔本市的两个地点通过有目的的抽样招募产科临床医生。对半结构式访谈进行了录音、转录,并采用反思性主题分析法进行了分析。确定了三个主题和十个次主题。这些主题是1) 这到底是谁的选择?讨论在这项研究中,产科临床医生从风险管理的角度来看待怀孕问题,这使得妇女参与决策变得更加复杂,同时也表明了一些固有的观念,这些观念可能会进一步限制体重指数高的妇女的选择。由于先入为主的风险观念和对体重指数高的妇女的污名化观念,临床医生可能会无意中限制了与体重指数高的妇女共同决策的机会。
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
Women and Birth
Women and Birth NURSING-OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
13.20%
发文量
371
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: Women and Birth is the official journal of the Australian College of Midwives (ACM). It is a midwifery journal that publishes on all matters that affect women and birth, from pre-conceptual counselling, through pregnancy, birth, and the first six weeks postnatal. All papers accepted will draw from and contribute to the relevant contemporary research, policy and/or theoretical literature. We seek research papers, quality assurances papers (with ethical approval) discussion papers, clinical practice papers, case studies and original literature reviews. Our women-centred focus is inclusive of the family, fetus and newborn, both well and sick, and covers both healthy and complex pregnancies and births. The journal seeks papers that take a woman-centred focus on maternity services, epidemiology, primary health care, reproductive psycho/physiology, midwifery practice, theory, research, education, management and leadership. We also seek relevant papers on maternal mental health and neonatal well-being, natural and complementary therapies, local, national and international policy, management, politics, economics and societal and cultural issues as they affect childbearing women and their families. Topics may include, where appropriate, neonatal care, child and family health, women’s health, related to pregnancy, birth and the postpartum, including lactation. Interprofessional papers relevant to midwifery are welcome. Articles are double blind peer-reviewed, primarily by experts in the field of the submitted work.
×
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