儿童分娩选择、信息和以人为本的解释(CHOICEs)措施中的分娩护理差距。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Amy H Goh, Keisha Robinson, Jaih B Craddock, Rachel Blankstein Breman
{"title":"儿童分娩选择、信息和以人为本的解释(CHOICEs)措施中的分娩护理差距。","authors":"Amy H Goh, Keisha Robinson, Jaih B Craddock, Rachel Blankstein Breman","doi":"10.1097/NMC.0000000000001004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this study was to revise and improve the intrapartum items of the shared decision-making (SDM) measure, CH ildbirth O ptions, I nformation and person- C entered E xplanation (CHOICEs).</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Methodological sequential triangulation was used to select a purposive sample of 29 people who gave birth in the United States between August 2019 and June 2021. A qualitative descriptive approach was used to analyze and interpret the data. We used an interview guide with questions related to the nine intrapartum items in CHOICEs to address the question: How did decision-making occur during your most recent birth?</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four major themes were identified: provider told me what to do ; communication about interventions during labor and birth ; preferences overlooked ; multiple team members . Under the theme of provider told me what to do , there was one sub-theme of induction of labor .</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>Participants noted lack of shared decision-making, poor communication, and obstetric violence. We found the need for perinatal providers to improve communication with birthing people on topics such as fetal monitoring, induction of labor, and multiple team members who may participate in their care. Revisions of CHOICEs will include seven new items to further address birth preferences, feeling heard, and multiple team members.</p>","PeriodicalId":51121,"journal":{"name":"Mcn-The American Journal of Maternal-Child Nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Birth Care Gaps in the Childbirth Options, Information, and Person-Centered Explanation (CHOICEs) Measure.\",\"authors\":\"Amy H Goh, Keisha Robinson, Jaih B Craddock, Rachel Blankstein Breman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/NMC.0000000000001004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this study was to revise and improve the intrapartum items of the shared decision-making (SDM) measure, CH ildbirth O ptions, I nformation and person- C entered E xplanation (CHOICEs).</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Methodological sequential triangulation was used to select a purposive sample of 29 people who gave birth in the United States between August 2019 and June 2021. A qualitative descriptive approach was used to analyze and interpret the data. We used an interview guide with questions related to the nine intrapartum items in CHOICEs to address the question: How did decision-making occur during your most recent birth?</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four major themes were identified: provider told me what to do ; communication about interventions during labor and birth ; preferences overlooked ; multiple team members . Under the theme of provider told me what to do , there was one sub-theme of induction of labor .</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>Participants noted lack of shared decision-making, poor communication, and obstetric violence. We found the need for perinatal providers to improve communication with birthing people on topics such as fetal monitoring, induction of labor, and multiple team members who may participate in their care. Revisions of CHOICEs will include seven new items to further address birth preferences, feeling heard, and multiple team members.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mcn-The American Journal of Maternal-Child Nursing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mcn-The American Journal of Maternal-Child Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/NMC.0000000000001004\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mcn-The American Journal of Maternal-Child Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NMC.0000000000001004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是修订和改进共同决策(SDM)措施 "分娩选择、信息和以人为本的解释(CHOICEs)"的产中项目:研究设计和方法:采用方法顺序三角测量法,有目的性地选取了 2019 年 8 月至 2021 年 6 月期间在美国分娩的 29 人作为样本。我们采用定性描述法对数据进行分析和解释。我们使用了一个访谈指南,其中包含与 CHOICEs 中九个产前项目相关的问题,以解决以下问题:结果:我们确定了四大主题:医护人员告诉我该怎么做;在分娩和生产过程中就干预措施进行沟通;忽略偏好;多个团队成员。在 "医护人员告诉我该怎么做 "这一主题下,有一个子主题是引产:临床意义:与会者指出缺乏共同决策、沟通不畅和产科暴力。我们发现围产期医疗服务提供者需要就胎儿监护、引产和可能参与其护理的多个团队成员等主题与分娩者加强沟通。CHOICEs 的修订版将包括七个新项目,以进一步解决分娩偏好、被倾听的感觉和多个团队成员等问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Birth Care Gaps in the Childbirth Options, Information, and Person-Centered Explanation (CHOICEs) Measure.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to revise and improve the intrapartum items of the shared decision-making (SDM) measure, CH ildbirth O ptions, I nformation and person- C entered E xplanation (CHOICEs).

Study design and methods: Methodological sequential triangulation was used to select a purposive sample of 29 people who gave birth in the United States between August 2019 and June 2021. A qualitative descriptive approach was used to analyze and interpret the data. We used an interview guide with questions related to the nine intrapartum items in CHOICEs to address the question: How did decision-making occur during your most recent birth?

Results: Four major themes were identified: provider told me what to do ; communication about interventions during labor and birth ; preferences overlooked ; multiple team members . Under the theme of provider told me what to do , there was one sub-theme of induction of labor .

Clinical implications: Participants noted lack of shared decision-making, poor communication, and obstetric violence. We found the need for perinatal providers to improve communication with birthing people on topics such as fetal monitoring, induction of labor, and multiple team members who may participate in their care. Revisions of CHOICEs will include seven new items to further address birth preferences, feeling heard, and multiple team members.

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
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
158
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: MCN''s mission is to provide the most timely, relevant information to nurses practicing in perinatal, neonatal, midwifery, and pediatric specialties. MCN is a peer-reviewed journal that meets its mission by publishing clinically relevant practice and research manuscripts aimed at assisting nurses toward evidence-based practice. MCN focuses on today''s major issues and high priority problems in maternal/child nursing, women''s health, and family nursing with extensive coverage of advanced practice healthcare issues relating to infants and young children. Each issue features peer-reviewed, clinically relevant articles. Coverage includes updates on disease and related care; ideas on health promotion; insights into patient and family behavior; discoveries in physiology and pathophysiology; clinical investigations; and research manuscripts that assist nurses toward evidence-based practices.
×
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