Intersectional dynamics and care disparities in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: a socio-technical systems perspective.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Verónica Blanco Gutiérrez, Lyuba V Bozhilova, Natalie Darko, Antoniya Georgieva, Kenton O'Hara
{"title":"Intersectional dynamics and care disparities in intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: a socio-technical systems perspective.","authors":"Verónica Blanco Gutiérrez, Lyuba V Bozhilova, Natalie Darko, Antoniya Georgieva, Kenton O'Hara","doi":"10.1186/s12884-025-07765-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring interpretation is subjective, variable and dependent on clinical expertise. Electronic Fetal Monitoring is also influenced by human factors, such as the labour ward context, staffing pressures, situational awareness, local protocols, workflow variations, team dynamics, and reporting cultures. This paper explored whether, and how, socio-technical factors may have the potential to contribute to disparities in intrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring care and their implications for maternal and neonatal health.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employed an exploratory qualitative design to investigate clinicians' experiences of Electronic Fetal Monitoring. Eighteen semi-structured interviews were undertaken online with midwives, student midwives and obstetricians involved in labour ward care in the UK. Critical Race Feminism and Intersectionality theories shaped the study design and analysis. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven themes were identified under the overarching theme intersectional dynamics in intrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring: 1) Social determinants in Electronic Fetal Monitoring interpretation, (2) Disparities in care expectations and decision agency, (3) Cultural influence on decision choices, (4) Disparities in communication, (5) Rationalising Electronic Fetal Monitoring outcomes towards preferred course of action, (6) Stereotypes and bias, and (7) Wider influences of Electronic Fetal Monitoring and labour care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Electronic Fetal Monitoring is a socially and contextually interpreted tool used to support particular interventions or inactions. Electronic Fetal Monitoring management is subject to systematic contextual influences, maternal Social Determinants of Health and biases that may further contribute to disparities in labour care and outcomes. Addressing maternal Social Determinants of Health while providing Electronic Fetal Monitoring care is vital to promoting equitable care, facilitating a positive experience and improving health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9033,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","volume":"25 1","pages":"647"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12128230/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-025-07765-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Intrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring interpretation is subjective, variable and dependent on clinical expertise. Electronic Fetal Monitoring is also influenced by human factors, such as the labour ward context, staffing pressures, situational awareness, local protocols, workflow variations, team dynamics, and reporting cultures. This paper explored whether, and how, socio-technical factors may have the potential to contribute to disparities in intrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring care and their implications for maternal and neonatal health.

Methods: This study employed an exploratory qualitative design to investigate clinicians' experiences of Electronic Fetal Monitoring. Eighteen semi-structured interviews were undertaken online with midwives, student midwives and obstetricians involved in labour ward care in the UK. Critical Race Feminism and Intersectionality theories shaped the study design and analysis. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: Seven themes were identified under the overarching theme intersectional dynamics in intrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring: 1) Social determinants in Electronic Fetal Monitoring interpretation, (2) Disparities in care expectations and decision agency, (3) Cultural influence on decision choices, (4) Disparities in communication, (5) Rationalising Electronic Fetal Monitoring outcomes towards preferred course of action, (6) Stereotypes and bias, and (7) Wider influences of Electronic Fetal Monitoring and labour care.

Conclusions: Electronic Fetal Monitoring is a socially and contextually interpreted tool used to support particular interventions or inactions. Electronic Fetal Monitoring management is subject to systematic contextual influences, maternal Social Determinants of Health and biases that may further contribute to disparities in labour care and outcomes. Addressing maternal Social Determinants of Health while providing Electronic Fetal Monitoring care is vital to promoting equitable care, facilitating a positive experience and improving health outcomes.

产中电子胎儿监测的交叉动态和护理差异:社会技术系统的视角。
背景:产时电子胎儿监护的解释是主观的,可变的,依赖于临床专业知识。电子胎儿监护也受到人为因素的影响,如产房环境、人员压力、态势感知、本地协议、工作流程变化、团队动态和报告文化。本文探讨了社会技术因素是否以及如何可能导致产时电子胎儿监护护理的差异及其对孕产妇和新生儿健康的影响。方法:本研究采用探索性定性设计调查临床医生对胎儿电子监护的经验。18个半结构化的访谈进行了在线助产士,学生助产士和产科医生参与产房护理在英国。批判性种族女权主义和交叉性理论塑造了研究的设计和分析。访谈采用反身性专题分析进行分析。结果:在产时电子胎儿监护的总体主题下确定了七个主题:1)电子胎儿监护解释的社会决定因素,(2)护理期望和决策机构的差异,(3)文化对决策选择的影响,(4)沟通的差异,(5)将电子胎儿监护结果合理化为首选行动方案,(6)刻板印象和偏见,(7)电子胎儿监护和分娩护理的广泛影响。结论:电子胎儿监护是一种社会和背景解释工具,用于支持特定的干预或不作为。电子胎儿监护管理受到系统的环境影响、产妇健康的社会决定因素和偏见的影响,这些因素可能进一步导致分娩护理和结果的差异。在提供电子胎儿监测护理的同时解决孕产妇健康的社会决定因素,对于促进公平护理、促进积极体验和改善健康结果至关重要。
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
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
845
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. The journal welcomes submissions on the biomedical aspects of pregnancy, breastfeeding, labor, maternal health, maternity care, trends and sociological aspects of pregnancy and childbirth.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信