在瑞典一所大学医院引入水中分娩:助产士经验定性研究。

IF 1.5 Q3 NURSING
European Journal of Midwifery Pub Date : 2024-06-03 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.18332/ejm/188193
Karin Larsson, Malin Bogren, Hanna Ulfsdottir
{"title":"在瑞典一所大学医院引入水中分娩:助产士经验定性研究。","authors":"Karin Larsson, Malin Bogren, Hanna Ulfsdottir","doi":"10.18332/ejm/188193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Waterbirth is a popular and increasing care option in several countries but is still debated. In Sweden, there are challenges in the process of reintroducing waterbirth after decades of interruption invoked by a dissuasion. The aim of this study was to explore factors affecting midwives' provision of waterbirth at a university birthing clinic in Sweden.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative research design was used with three focus group interviews with 18 midwives at three birthing units. The data were analyzed using the principles of inductive content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The midwives in the study expressed positive attitudes and potentiality about waterbirth, contributing to their desire to support physiological birth. However, obstacles were also disclosed, maiming waterbirth evolvement. Hence, two categories emerged, promoting factors and obstructing factors. The subcategories were: Provides a good experience whilst promoting physiological birth; Increased knowledge and information about waterbirth; Support from management; Updated guidelines; Ergonomic challenges; Lacking practical conditions; Lack of knowledge; Paradigm conflicts; and Limiting guidelines.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study concluded that midwives recognized both promoting and obstructing factors affecting the provision of waterbirth. The predominant factor highlighted was the care-culture, with a clear distinction between a risk-focused, medicalized approach that inhibits waterbirth and a salutogenic perspective advocating for it. This dichotomy underscores the importance of providing opportunities that support women's choices to facilitate an empowering birth experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":32920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Midwifery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11145720/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introducing waterbirth in a university hospital setting in Sweden: A qualitative study of midwives' experiences.\",\"authors\":\"Karin Larsson, Malin Bogren, Hanna Ulfsdottir\",\"doi\":\"10.18332/ejm/188193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Waterbirth is a popular and increasing care option in several countries but is still debated. In Sweden, there are challenges in the process of reintroducing waterbirth after decades of interruption invoked by a dissuasion. The aim of this study was to explore factors affecting midwives' provision of waterbirth at a university birthing clinic in Sweden.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative research design was used with three focus group interviews with 18 midwives at three birthing units. The data were analyzed using the principles of inductive content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The midwives in the study expressed positive attitudes and potentiality about waterbirth, contributing to their desire to support physiological birth. However, obstacles were also disclosed, maiming waterbirth evolvement. Hence, two categories emerged, promoting factors and obstructing factors. The subcategories were: Provides a good experience whilst promoting physiological birth; Increased knowledge and information about waterbirth; Support from management; Updated guidelines; Ergonomic challenges; Lacking practical conditions; Lack of knowledge; Paradigm conflicts; and Limiting guidelines.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study concluded that midwives recognized both promoting and obstructing factors affecting the provision of waterbirth. The predominant factor highlighted was the care-culture, with a clear distinction between a risk-focused, medicalized approach that inhibits waterbirth and a salutogenic perspective advocating for it. This dichotomy underscores the importance of providing opportunities that support women's choices to facilitate an empowering birth experience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Midwifery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11145720/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Midwifery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18332/ejm/188193\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18332/ejm/188193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:在一些国家,水中分娩是一种越来越受欢迎的护理方式,但仍存在争议。在瑞典,水中分娩在被劝阻中断数十年后,在重新引入的过程中面临着挑战。本研究旨在探讨影响瑞典一所大学分娩诊所助产士提供水中分娩服务的因素:采用定性研究设计,对三个分娩单元的 18 名助产士进行了三次焦点小组访谈。采用归纳内容分析的原则对数据进行分析:研究中的助产士对水中分娩表达了积极的态度和潜力,这有助于她们支持生理分娩的愿望。但同时也发现了阻碍水中分娩发展的因素。因此,出现了两个类别,即促进因素和阻碍因素。这些子类别是在促进生理分娩的同时提供良好的体验;增加有关水中分娩的知识和信息;管理层的支持;最新的指南;人体工程学挑战;缺乏实际条件;缺乏知识;范式冲突;以及限制性指南:研究认为,助产士认识到影响水中分娩的促进因素和阻碍因素。研究强调的主要因素是护理文化,明确区分了阻碍水中分娩的以风险为重点的医疗方法和提倡水中分娩的救护观点。这种二分法强调了提供支持妇女选择的机会以促进赋权分娩体验的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Introducing waterbirth in a university hospital setting in Sweden: A qualitative study of midwives' experiences.

Introduction: Waterbirth is a popular and increasing care option in several countries but is still debated. In Sweden, there are challenges in the process of reintroducing waterbirth after decades of interruption invoked by a dissuasion. The aim of this study was to explore factors affecting midwives' provision of waterbirth at a university birthing clinic in Sweden.

Methods: A qualitative research design was used with three focus group interviews with 18 midwives at three birthing units. The data were analyzed using the principles of inductive content analysis.

Results: The midwives in the study expressed positive attitudes and potentiality about waterbirth, contributing to their desire to support physiological birth. However, obstacles were also disclosed, maiming waterbirth evolvement. Hence, two categories emerged, promoting factors and obstructing factors. The subcategories were: Provides a good experience whilst promoting physiological birth; Increased knowledge and information about waterbirth; Support from management; Updated guidelines; Ergonomic challenges; Lacking practical conditions; Lack of knowledge; Paradigm conflicts; and Limiting guidelines.

Conclusions: The study concluded that midwives recognized both promoting and obstructing factors affecting the provision of waterbirth. The predominant factor highlighted was the care-culture, with a clear distinction between a risk-focused, medicalized approach that inhibits waterbirth and a salutogenic perspective advocating for it. This dichotomy underscores the importance of providing opportunities that support women's choices to facilitate an empowering birth experience.

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
European Journal of Midwifery
European Journal of Midwifery Nursing-Maternity and Midwifery
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
15.80%
发文量
65
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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