A content analysis of women's experiences of debriefing following childbirth: The birth experience study (BESt)

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Lucy Bannister , Athena Hammond , Hannah G Dahlen , Hazel Keedle
{"title":"A content analysis of women's experiences of debriefing following childbirth: The birth experience study (BESt)","authors":"Lucy Bannister ,&nbsp;Athena Hammond ,&nbsp;Hannah G Dahlen ,&nbsp;Hazel Keedle","doi":"10.1016/j.midw.2025.104421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The early postpartum period is highly vulnerable, with the World Health Organization estimating that 13 % of women globally experience postnatal mental health disorders. Postnatal care often lacks the resources allocated to antenatal and intrapartum care, leading to maternal psychological needs being overlooked. Understanding women's lived experiences of debriefing is crucial as it provides insights into the practical and emotional aspects of debriefing that effectiveness studies alone cannot capture. Debriefing, a psychological intervention, can help prevent postnatal mental health issues, though the most effective approaches are still debated.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To explore Australian women's views on the role of debriefing in postnatal care, including its benefits and suggestions for implementation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The Birth Experience Study (BESt) was a national online survey conducted in 2021 which focused on the experiences of Australian women who had given birth at any time in the preceding five years. The survey included questions about their debriefing experiences, who they debriefed with, and their suggestions for optimal timing of debriefing. Qualitative content analysis was applied to 2154 open-ended responses discussing postnatal debriefing experiences.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Of 2514 responses, two main categories were found that focused on the debriefing experience and suggestions for optimal timing for debriefing following birth. Women highlighted the importance of being heard compared to being dismissed and not being able to validate their feelings.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Women value debriefing, and its effective implementation depends on individual experiences and needs. The findings suggest that debriefing should become standard practice, with maternity clinicians trained to provide this crucial aspect of postnatal care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18495,"journal":{"name":"Midwifery","volume":"146 ","pages":"Article 104421"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266613825001391","RegionNum":3,"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

The early postpartum period is highly vulnerable, with the World Health Organization estimating that 13 % of women globally experience postnatal mental health disorders. Postnatal care often lacks the resources allocated to antenatal and intrapartum care, leading to maternal psychological needs being overlooked. Understanding women's lived experiences of debriefing is crucial as it provides insights into the practical and emotional aspects of debriefing that effectiveness studies alone cannot capture. Debriefing, a psychological intervention, can help prevent postnatal mental health issues, though the most effective approaches are still debated.

Aim

To explore Australian women's views on the role of debriefing in postnatal care, including its benefits and suggestions for implementation.

Methods

The Birth Experience Study (BESt) was a national online survey conducted in 2021 which focused on the experiences of Australian women who had given birth at any time in the preceding five years. The survey included questions about their debriefing experiences, who they debriefed with, and their suggestions for optimal timing of debriefing. Qualitative content analysis was applied to 2154 open-ended responses discussing postnatal debriefing experiences.

Findings

Of 2514 responses, two main categories were found that focused on the debriefing experience and suggestions for optimal timing for debriefing following birth. Women highlighted the importance of being heard compared to being dismissed and not being able to validate their feelings.

Conclusion

Women value debriefing, and its effective implementation depends on individual experiences and needs. The findings suggest that debriefing should become standard practice, with maternity clinicians trained to provide this crucial aspect of postnatal care.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Midwifery
Midwifery 医学-护理
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
221
审稿时长
13.4 weeks
期刊介绍: Midwifery publishes the latest peer reviewed international research to inform the safety, quality, outcomes and experiences of pregnancy, birth and maternity care for childbearing women, their babies and families. The journal’s publications support midwives and maternity care providers to explore and develop their knowledge, skills and attitudes informed by best available evidence. Midwifery provides an international, interdisciplinary forum for the publication, dissemination and discussion of advances in evidence, controversies and current research, and promotes continuing education through publication of systematic and other scholarly reviews and updates. Midwifery articles cover the cultural, clinical, psycho-social, sociological, epidemiological, education, managerial, workforce, organizational and technological areas of practice in preconception, maternal and infant care. The journal welcomes the highest quality scholarly research that employs rigorous methodology. Midwifery is a leading international journal in midwifery and maternal health with a current impact factor of 1.861 (© Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2016) and employs a double-blind peer review process.
×
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