产科暴力和患者选择的作用:外阴切开术的相关因素。

Mounika Polavarapu, Dorian S Odems, Sativa Banks, Shipra Singh
{"title":"产科暴力和患者选择的作用:外阴切开术的相关因素。","authors":"Mounika Polavarapu, Dorian S Odems, Sativa Banks, Shipra Singh","doi":"10.1111/jmwh.13655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In the United States, 1 in 6 women reports obstetric violence in the form of physical and verbal abuse, coercion, and lack of informed consent. Despite recommendations against routine episiotomy, its use in the United States remains notable and varies considerably. This study aimed to analyze the various forms of obstetric violence associated with undergoing an episiotomy and having a choice in undergoing an episiotomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the cross-sectional Listening to Mothers in California survey were analyzed using weighted sample. Logistic regression models were conducted to compute adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs for undergoing episiotomy and having a choice in it.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 21% of the respondents reported undergoing an episiotomy, and 75% of them reported not having a choice in undergoing this procedure. After adjusting for covariates, feeling pressured to induce labor (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.28-1.35) and to use an epidural analgesia (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.77-1.88) increased the odds of undergoing an episiotomy. Having a midwife during childbirth significantly reduced the odds of an episiotomy. Respondents who indicated being handled roughly by health care providers were 95% less likely to have a choice in receiving an episiotomy (aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.06).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This is the first study to examine other forms of obstetric violence as correlates of episiotomy and having a choice in it. Standardized institutional measures against obstetric violence, patients' ability to make autonomous decisions through informed consent, and engaging midwives could decrease medically unnecessary labor procedures and associated complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":94094,"journal":{"name":"Journal of midwifery & women's health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Role of Obstetric Violence and Patient Choice: Factors Associated With Episiotomy.\",\"authors\":\"Mounika Polavarapu, Dorian S Odems, Sativa Banks, Shipra Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jmwh.13655\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In the United States, 1 in 6 women reports obstetric violence in the form of physical and verbal abuse, coercion, and lack of informed consent. Despite recommendations against routine episiotomy, its use in the United States remains notable and varies considerably. This study aimed to analyze the various forms of obstetric violence associated with undergoing an episiotomy and having a choice in undergoing an episiotomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the cross-sectional Listening to Mothers in California survey were analyzed using weighted sample. Logistic regression models were conducted to compute adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs for undergoing episiotomy and having a choice in it.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 21% of the respondents reported undergoing an episiotomy, and 75% of them reported not having a choice in undergoing this procedure. After adjusting for covariates, feeling pressured to induce labor (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.28-1.35) and to use an epidural analgesia (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.77-1.88) increased the odds of undergoing an episiotomy. Having a midwife during childbirth significantly reduced the odds of an episiotomy. Respondents who indicated being handled roughly by health care providers were 95% less likely to have a choice in receiving an episiotomy (aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.06).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This is the first study to examine other forms of obstetric violence as correlates of episiotomy and having a choice in it. Standardized institutional measures against obstetric violence, patients' ability to make autonomous decisions through informed consent, and engaging midwives could decrease medically unnecessary labor procedures and associated complications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of midwifery & women's health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of midwifery & women's health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13655\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of midwifery & women's health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13655","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:在美国,每 6 名妇女中就有 1 人报告遭受过产科暴力,其形式包括身体和言语虐待、胁迫和缺乏知情同意。尽管有建议反对常规的外阴切开术,但在美国,外阴切开术的使用仍很普遍,而且差别很大。本研究旨在分析与接受外阴切开术和选择接受外阴切开术相关的各种形式的产科暴力:方法:使用加权样本分析了来自加利福尼亚州 "倾听母亲心声 "横断面调查的数据。采用逻辑回归模型计算了接受外阴切开术和可选择接受外阴切开术的调整赔率比(aORs)和 95% CIs:总体而言,21%的受访者表示接受了外阴切开术,75%的受访者表示没有选择接受该手术。在对协变量进行调整后,感觉到催产压力(aOR,1.31;95% CI,1.28-1.35)和使用硬膜外镇痛(aOR,1.82;95% CI,1.77-1.88)会增加接受外阴切开术的几率。分娩时有助产士在场可大大降低外阴切开术的几率。表示受到医护人员粗暴对待的受访者选择接受外阴切开术的几率为 95%(aOR,0.05;95% CI,0.04-0.06):这是第一项将其他形式的产科暴力与外阴切开术及选择权相关联的研究。针对产科暴力的标准化制度措施、患者通过知情同意做出自主决定的能力以及助产士的参与可以减少不必要的医疗分娩程序和相关并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Role of Obstetric Violence and Patient Choice: Factors Associated With Episiotomy.

Introduction: In the United States, 1 in 6 women reports obstetric violence in the form of physical and verbal abuse, coercion, and lack of informed consent. Despite recommendations against routine episiotomy, its use in the United States remains notable and varies considerably. This study aimed to analyze the various forms of obstetric violence associated with undergoing an episiotomy and having a choice in undergoing an episiotomy.

Methods: Data from the cross-sectional Listening to Mothers in California survey were analyzed using weighted sample. Logistic regression models were conducted to compute adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs for undergoing episiotomy and having a choice in it.

Results: Overall, 21% of the respondents reported undergoing an episiotomy, and 75% of them reported not having a choice in undergoing this procedure. After adjusting for covariates, feeling pressured to induce labor (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.28-1.35) and to use an epidural analgesia (aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.77-1.88) increased the odds of undergoing an episiotomy. Having a midwife during childbirth significantly reduced the odds of an episiotomy. Respondents who indicated being handled roughly by health care providers were 95% less likely to have a choice in receiving an episiotomy (aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.06).

Discussion: This is the first study to examine other forms of obstetric violence as correlates of episiotomy and having a choice in it. Standardized institutional measures against obstetric violence, patients' ability to make autonomous decisions through informed consent, and engaging midwives could decrease medically unnecessary labor procedures and associated complications.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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