妇女同意引产的经验:一项定性研究。

IF 1.4 3区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Clodagh Kelly , Melissa Whitten , Sophie Kennedy , Anne Lanceley , Jacqueline Nicholls
{"title":"妇女同意引产的经验:一项定性研究。","authors":"Clodagh Kelly ,&nbsp;Melissa Whitten ,&nbsp;Sophie Kennedy ,&nbsp;Anne Lanceley ,&nbsp;Jacqueline Nicholls","doi":"10.1016/j.srhc.2023.100928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Induction of labour (IOL) does not require formal written consent, and little is known about how consent operates in this context. This prospective study explores pregnant women’s experiences of the IOL consent process.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Qualitative study using semi-structured, interviews with thirteen women admitted to hospital for IOL. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Three themes emerged: 1) <strong><em>Voluntary nature of consent:</em></strong> Some women experienced genuine choice; others perceived pressure to prioritise their baby. 2) <strong><em>Understanding the why and how, risks and benefits</em>:</strong> Information provision and explanation was often minimal, particularly regarding risks and alternatives to induction. The possibility of IOL failing was not discussed 3<strong><em>) Non-personalised information process:</em></strong> Few women received information specific and relevant to their circumstance.</p></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><p>There is an urgent need for healthcare professionals to be supported in actively facilitating consent consultations which enable women undergoing IOL to make a fully autonomous, informed choice.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Women did not always experience choice about whether to be induced. This sense of disempowerment was sometimes exacerbated by inadequate information provision. The study reveals a practice imperative to address consent in IOL and we suggest there is an urgent need for HCPs to be offered high quality training specific to IOL.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54199,"journal":{"name":"Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877575623001180/pdfft?md5=3974a103242afc448f24c7a8764adb54&pid=1-s2.0-S1877575623001180-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Women’s experiences of consent to induction of labour: A qualitative study\",\"authors\":\"Clodagh Kelly ,&nbsp;Melissa Whitten ,&nbsp;Sophie Kennedy ,&nbsp;Anne Lanceley ,&nbsp;Jacqueline Nicholls\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.srhc.2023.100928\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Induction of labour (IOL) does not require formal written consent, and little is known about how consent operates in this context. This prospective study explores pregnant women’s experiences of the IOL consent process.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Qualitative study using semi-structured, interviews with thirteen women admitted to hospital for IOL. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Three themes emerged: 1) <strong><em>Voluntary nature of consent:</em></strong> Some women experienced genuine choice; others perceived pressure to prioritise their baby. 2) <strong><em>Understanding the why and how, risks and benefits</em>:</strong> Information provision and explanation was often minimal, particularly regarding risks and alternatives to induction. The possibility of IOL failing was not discussed 3<strong><em>) Non-personalised information process:</em></strong> Few women received information specific and relevant to their circumstance.</p></div><div><h3>Practice implications</h3><p>There is an urgent need for healthcare professionals to be supported in actively facilitating consent consultations which enable women undergoing IOL to make a fully autonomous, informed choice.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Women did not always experience choice about whether to be induced. This sense of disempowerment was sometimes exacerbated by inadequate information provision. The study reveals a practice imperative to address consent in IOL and we suggest there is an urgent need for HCPs to be offered high quality training specific to IOL.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54199,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877575623001180/pdfft?md5=3974a103242afc448f24c7a8764adb54&pid=1-s2.0-S1877575623001180-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877575623001180\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877575623001180","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:引产(IOL)不需要正式的书面同意,并且很少知道在这种情况下同意是如何运作的。本前瞻性研究探讨了孕妇在人工晶状体同意过程中的经历。方法:采用半结构化访谈法对13例因人工晶状体手术住院的妇女进行定性研究。采用专题分析对数据进行分析。结果:出现了三个主题:1)同意的自愿性:一些女性经历了真正的选择;另一些人则感受到了优先考虑孩子的压力。2)了解为什么和如何,风险和利益:信息提供和解释往往很少,特别是关于风险和诱导的替代方案。3)非个性化的信息处理:很少有女性获得与自身情况相关的具体信息。实践影响:迫切需要支持保健专业人员积极促进同意协商,使接受IOL的妇女能够做出完全自主、知情的选择。结论:妇女并不总是有选择是否引产的经验。这种被剥夺权力的感觉有时因信息提供不足而加剧。该研究揭示了解决人工晶状体同意问题的实践必要性,我们建议医疗cps迫切需要为人工晶状体提供高质量的培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Women’s experiences of consent to induction of labour: A qualitative study

Objective

Induction of labour (IOL) does not require formal written consent, and little is known about how consent operates in this context. This prospective study explores pregnant women’s experiences of the IOL consent process.

Methods

Qualitative study using semi-structured, interviews with thirteen women admitted to hospital for IOL. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Three themes emerged: 1) Voluntary nature of consent: Some women experienced genuine choice; others perceived pressure to prioritise their baby. 2) Understanding the why and how, risks and benefits: Information provision and explanation was often minimal, particularly regarding risks and alternatives to induction. The possibility of IOL failing was not discussed 3) Non-personalised information process: Few women received information specific and relevant to their circumstance.

Practice implications

There is an urgent need for healthcare professionals to be supported in actively facilitating consent consultations which enable women undergoing IOL to make a fully autonomous, informed choice.

Conclusions

Women did not always experience choice about whether to be induced. This sense of disempowerment was sometimes exacerbated by inadequate information provision. The study reveals a practice imperative to address consent in IOL and we suggest there is an urgent need for HCPs to be offered high quality training specific to IOL.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare
Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
73
审稿时长
45 days
×
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