Maternal and Infant Nutrition and Nurture Unit, School of Health, Brook Building, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 2HE, UK.
Midwifery. 2013 Mar;29(3):211-6. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.01.002. Epub 2012 Feb 16.
to offer a critical discussion from a public health perspective of service user's experiences of antenatal care services.
a qualitative, descriptive study using 18 group (n = 86) and six individual semi-structured interviews (n = 6) with thematic networks analysis conducted.
ninety-two participants recruited from organisations/groups who work with vulnerable populations and/or community groups were consulted in the North West of England.
analysis from a public health perspective suggested four key areas: antenatal care attendance, the frequency of antenatal appointments, the location of antenatal care and the provision of risk information. The benefits of universal access to antenatal care were mainly evident to participants. The need for targeting those with identified clinical risk was valued, but participants expressed frustration at a 'one-size fits all' approach for others, which failed to adequately consider their psychosocial and educational needs. In some women, this failure prompted non-compliant behaviour. Concerns were somewhat compensated for by community-based antenatal services.
inequities in antenatal care persist with service users from vulnerable population groups continuing to express that these services do not meet their needs. Neither a targeted approach based on clinical needs nor a population-based approach, which service users feel limits access, meet their expectations. Proportionate universalism offers a new paradigm in public health with level of service proportionate to need. Such an approach may facilitate health-care staff to meet the expectations of vulnerable families who may require more psychosocial and educational support.
从公共卫生的角度对服务使用者的产前保健服务体验进行批判性讨论。
采用定性、描述性研究,使用 18 个小组(n = 86)和 6 个个体半结构访谈(n = 6),并进行主题网络分析。
在英格兰西北部,咨询了 92 名来自为弱势群体和/或社区团体工作的组织/团体的参与者。
从公共卫生的角度分析,有四个关键领域:产前护理出勤率、产前预约的频率、产前护理地点和风险信息的提供。普遍获得产前护理的好处主要为参与者所认可。确定临床风险的目标人群的需求是有价值的,但参与者对其他人的“一刀切”方法表示不满,因为这种方法没有充分考虑到他们的社会心理和教育需求。在一些女性中,这种失败导致了不遵守行为。社区为基础的产前服务在一定程度上缓解了这些担忧。
产前保健方面的不平等现象仍然存在,弱势群体的服务使用者继续表示,这些服务无法满足他们的需求。基于临床需求的针对性方法或服务使用者认为限制了服务的普及性方法都无法满足他们的期望。适度的普遍性为公共卫生提供了一个新的范例,服务水平与需求相称。这种方法可能有助于医疗保健人员满足可能需要更多社会心理和教育支持的弱势群体家庭的期望。