Self-Employed Midwife on Sabbatical, New Zealand.
AUT University, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Midwifery and Women's Health Research, New Zealand.
Women Birth. 2023 Mar;36(2):e283-e294. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2022.06.014. Epub 2022 Jul 20.
Women's autonomous choices in pursuit of physiological childbirth are sometimes limited by the midwife's willingness to support those choices, particularly when those choices are contrary to recommendations or outside of guidelines.
Women's reasons for making such choices have received some research attention, however there is a paucity of research examining this phenomenon from the perspective of caseloading midwives' and their perception of personal/professional risk in such situations.
To synthesise qualitative research which includes the voices of midwives working in a continuity of carer model who perceive any kind of risk to themselves when caring for women who decline current established recommendations.
Systematic literature search and meta-synthesis were carried out following a pre-determined search strategy. The search was executed in April 2021 and updated in July 2021. Studies were assessed for quality using JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data extraction was assisted by JBI QARI Data Extraction Tool for Qualitative Research. GRADE-CERQual was applied to the findings.
Eight studies qualified for inclusion. Five main themes were synthesised as third order constructs and were incorporated into a line of argument: Women's rights to bodily autonomy and choice in childbearing are violated, and their ability to access safe midwifery care in pursuit of physiological birth is restricted, when midwives practise within a maternity system which is adversarial towards midwives who provide the care which women require. Midwives who provide such care place themselves at risk of damaged reputation, collegial conflict, intimidating disciplinary processes, tensions of 'being torn', and a heavy psychological load. Despite these personal and professional risks, midwives who provide this care do so because it is the ethical and moral thing to do, because they recognise that women need them to, because it can be very rewarding, and because they are able to.
Maternity systems and colleagues can be key risk factors for caseloading midwives who facilitate women's right to decline recommendations. These identified risks can make it unsustainable for midwives to continue providing woman-centred care and contribute to workforce attrition, reducing options/choices for women which paradoxically increases risk to women and babies.
女性自主选择生理分娩有时会受到助产士支持这些选择的意愿的限制,尤其是当这些选择与建议相悖或超出指导方针时。
女性做出此类选择的原因已经引起了一些研究关注,但是,从以连续照护模式工作的助产士的角度,以及她们在这种情况下对个人/职业风险的看法,来研究这种现象的研究却很少。
综合定性研究,包括在连续照护模式下工作的助产士的声音,这些助产士在照顾拒绝当前既定建议的女性时,会认为自己有任何风险。
按照预先确定的搜索策略进行系统文献搜索和元综合。搜索于 2021 年 4 月进行,并于 2021 年 7 月进行了更新。使用 JBI 定性研究批判性评价清单评估研究质量。使用 JBI QARI 定性研究数据提取工具协助数据提取。应用 GRADE-CERQual 对结果进行评估。
八项研究符合纳入标准。综合了五个主要主题作为第三级结构,并纳入了一个论证线:当助产士在敌对助产士提供女性所需护理的产科学系统中执业时,女性在生育方面的身体自主和选择权利受到侵犯,并且她们获得安全助产护理以追求生理分娩的能力受到限制。提供这种护理的助产士会面临声誉受损、同事冲突、恐吓性纪律处分程序、“左右为难”的紧张关系和沉重的心理负担等风险。尽管存在这些个人和职业风险,但提供这种护理的助产士这样做是因为这是道德和道德的事情,因为他们认识到女性需要他们这样做,因为这可能非常有回报,因为他们能够这样做。
助产士的工作内容会影响产妇的分娩选择,使产妇面临风险。产妇系统和同事可能是促进女性拒绝建议权利的助产士的关键风险因素。这些已确定的风险可能使助产士无法继续提供以女性为中心的护理,并导致劳动力流失,减少女性的选择,这反而会增加女性和婴儿的风险。