Suppr超能文献

产科护理提供者群体对分娩是否有不同的态度?

Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?

作者信息

Reime Birgit, Klein Michael C, Kelly Ann, Duxbury Nancy, Saxell Lee, Liston Robert, Prompers Frédérique Josephine Petra Maria, Entjes Robert Stefan Willem, Wong Victor

机构信息

Faculty of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

出版信息

BJOG. 2004 Dec;111(12):1388-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00338.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare family physicians', obstetricians' and midwives' self-reported practices, attitudes and beliefs about central issues in childbirth.

DESIGN

Mail-out questionnaire. SETTING/POPULATION; All registered midwives in the province, and a sample of family physicians and obstetricians in a maternity care teaching hospital. Response rates: 91% (n = 50), 69% (n = 97) and 89% (n = 34), respectively.

METHODS

A postal survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Twenty-three five-point Likert scale items (strongly agree to strongly disagree) addressing attitudes toward routine electronic fetal monitoring, induction of labour, epidural analgesia, episiotomy, doulas, vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBACs), birth centres, provision educational material, birth plans and caesarean section.

RESULTS

Cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters based on similar response to the questions. The 'MW' cluster consisted of 100% of midwives and 26% of the family physicians. The 'OB' cluster was composed of 79% of the obstetricians and 16% of the family physicians. The 'FP' cluster was composed of 58% the family physicians and 21% the obstetricians. Members of the 'OB' cluster more strongly believed that women had the right to request a caesarean section without maternal/fetal indications (P < 0.001), that epidurals early in labour were not associated with development of fetal malpositions (P < 0.001) and that increasing caesarean rates were a sign of improvement in obstetrics (P < 0.001). The 'OB' cluster members were more likely to say they would induce women as soon as possible after 41 3/7 weeks of gestation (P < 0.001) and were least likely to encourage the use of birth plans (P < 0.001). The 'MW' cluster's views were the opposite of the 'OBs' while the 'FP' cluster's views fell between the 'MW' and 'OB' clusters.

CONCLUSIONS

In our environment, obstetricians were the most attached to technology and interventions including caesarean section and inductions, midwives the least, while family physicians fell in the middle. While generalisations can be problematic, obstetricians and midwives generally follow a defined and different approach to maternity care. Family physicians are heterogeneous, sometimes practising more like midwives and sometimes more like obstetricians.

摘要

目的

比较家庭医生、产科医生和助产士关于分娩核心问题的自我报告的做法、态度和信念。

设计

邮寄问卷调查。设置/人群:该省所有注册助产士,以及一家产科护理教学医院的家庭医生和产科医生样本。回复率分别为91%(n = 50)、69%(n = 97)和89%(n = 34)。

方法

邮政调查。

主要观察指标

23个五点李克特量表项目(从强烈同意到强烈不同意),涉及对常规电子胎儿监护、引产、硬膜外镇痛、会阴切开术、导乐、剖宫产术后阴道分娩(VBAC)、分娩中心、提供教育材料、分娩计划和剖宫产的态度。

结果

聚类分析根据对问题的相似回答确定了三个不同的聚类。“助产士”聚类由100%的助产士和26%的家庭医生组成。“产科医生”聚类由79%的产科医生和16%的家庭医生组成。“家庭医生”聚类由58%的家庭医生和21%的产科医生组成。“产科医生”聚类的成员更强烈地认为,女性有权在无母婴指征的情况下要求剖宫产(P < 0.001),产程早期使用硬膜外麻醉与胎位异常的发生无关(P < 0.001),剖宫产率上升是产科改善的标志(P < 0.001)。“产科医生”聚类的成员更有可能表示,他们会在妊娠41又3/7周后尽快为女性引产(P < 0.001),且最不可能鼓励使用分娩计划(P < 0.001)。“助产士”聚类的观点与“产科医生”聚类相反,而“家庭医生”聚类的观点介于“助产士”聚类和“产科医生”聚类之间。

结论

在我们的环境中,产科医生最依赖包括剖宫产和引产在内的技术和干预措施,助产士最不依赖,而家庭医生则介于两者之间。虽然一概而论可能存在问题,但产科医生和助产士通常遵循明确且不同的产科护理方法。家庭医生群体具有异质性,有时的做法更像助产士,有时更像产科医生。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验