Suppr超能文献

审视美国分娩中的尊重、自主权和虐待问题:提供者类型和分娩地点是否重要?

Examining respect, autonomy, and mistreatment in childbirth in the US: do provider type and place of birth matter?

机构信息

New York University, 433 First Avenue, Room 644, New York, NY, 10010, USA.

Every Mother Counts, 333 Hudson St Suite 1006, New York, NY, 10013, USA.

出版信息

Reprod Health. 2023 May 1;20(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s12978-023-01584-1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Analyses of factors that determine quality of perinatal care consistently rely on clinical markers, while failing to assess experiential outcomes. Understanding how model of care and birth setting influence experiences of respect, autonomy, and decision making, is essential for comprehensive assessment of quality.

METHODS

We examined responses (n = 1771) to an online cross-sectional national survey capturing experiences of perinatal care in the United States. We used validated patient-oriented measures and scales to assess four domains of experience: (1) decision-making, (2) respect, (3) mistreatment, and (4) time spent during visits. We categorized the provider type and birth setting into three groups: midwife at community birth, midwife at hospital-birth, and physician at hospital-birth. For each group, we used multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics, to estimate the odds of experiential outcomes in all the four domains.

RESULTS

Compared to those cared for by physicians in hospitals, individuals cared for by midwives in community settings had more than five times the odds of experiencing higher autonomy (aOR: 5.22, 95% CI: 3.65-7.45), higher respect (aOR: 5.39, 95% CI: 3.72-7.82) and lower odds of mistreatment (aOR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.10-0.26). We found significant differences across birth settings: participants cared for by midwives in the community settings had significantly better experiential outcomes than those in the hospital settings: high- autonomy (aOR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.66-4.27), respect (aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 2.81-6.14), mistreatment (aOR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.34), time spent (aOR: 8.06, 95% CI: 4.26-15.28).

CONCLUSION

Participants reported better experiential outcomes when cared for by midwives than by physicians. And for those receiving midwifery care, the quality of experiential outcomes was significantly higher in community settings than in hospital settings. Care settings matter and structures of hospital-based care may impair implementation of the person-centered midwifery care model.

摘要

背景

分析决定围产期护理质量的因素时,分析人员通常依赖临床指标,而未能评估体验结果。了解护理模式和分娩环境如何影响尊重、自主权和决策制定方面的体验,对于全面评估质量至关重要。

方法

我们调查了美国全国性在线横断面调查的 1771 份回复,该调查评估了围产期护理体验。我们使用经过验证的以患者为导向的测量和量表评估了四个体验领域:(1)决策,(2)尊重,(3)虐待,以及(4)就诊期间的时间。我们将提供者类型和分娩环境分为三组:社区分娩的助产士、医院分娩的助产士和医院分娩的医生。对于每组,我们使用多变量逻辑回归,根据人口统计学和临床特征进行调整,以估计所有四个领域的体验结果的几率。

结果

与在医院由医生护理的患者相比,在社区由助产士护理的患者体验到更高自主权的几率高 5 倍以上(优势比[OR]:5.22,95%置信区间[CI]:3.65-7.45),更高的尊重(OR:5.39,95%CI:3.72-7.82)和更低的虐待几率(OR:0.16,95%CI:0.10-0.26)。我们发现分娩环境存在显著差异:在社区环境中由助产士护理的参与者的体验结果明显好于在医院环境中的参与者:高自主权(OR:2.97,95%CI:2.66-4.27)、尊重(OR:4.15,95%CI:2.81-6.14)、虐待(OR:0.20,95%CI:0.11-0.34),就诊时间(OR:8.06,95%CI:4.26-15.28)。

结论

与由医生护理的患者相比,参与者报告说由助产士护理时体验结果更好。而且,对于接受助产士护理的人来说,在社区环境中体验结果的质量明显高于在医院环境中。护理环境很重要,基于医院的护理结构可能会妨碍以人为中心的助产护理模式的实施。

相似文献

3
Assessment of the implementation of the model of integrated and humanised midwifery health services in Chile.
Midwifery. 2016 Apr;35:53-61. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.01.018. Epub 2016 Feb 8.
4
Patient-led decision making: Measuring autonomy and respect in Canadian maternity care.
Patient Educ Couns. 2019 Mar;102(3):586-594. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.10.023. Epub 2018 Nov 2.
5
A national survey of Australian midwives' birth choices and outcomes.
Women Birth. 2023 Mar;36(2):e246-e253. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2022.07.173. Epub 2022 Aug 1.
10
Disparities in Mistreatment During Childbirth.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Apr 1;7(4):e244873. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.4873.

引用本文的文献

1
Experiences of Canadian perinatal care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of open-ended survey responses.
Womens Health (Lond). 2025 Jan-Dec;21:17455057251331696. doi: 10.1177/17455057251331696. Epub 2025 Apr 16.
2
Experiences of Blame Among Pregnant Black Women During Prenatal Care.
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2025 Mar 19. doi: 10.1007/s40615-025-02392-y.
4
Rethinking the birth plan after the pandemic: A qualitative study of the view of Spanish midwives.
Heliyon. 2024 Nov 22;10(23):e40474. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40474. eCollection 2024 Dec 15.
5
Prevalence of obstetric violence in high-income countries: A systematic review of mixed studies and meta-analysis of quantitative studies.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2025 Jan;104(1):13-28. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14962. Epub 2024 Sep 15.

本文引用的文献

1
United States community births increased by 20% from 2019 to 2020.
Birth. 2022 Sep;49(3):559-568. doi: 10.1111/birt.12627. Epub 2022 Feb 25.
2
Birth Outcomes for Planned Home and Licensed Freestanding Birth Center Births in Washington State.
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Nov 1;138(5):693-702. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004578.
4
Birth models of care and intervention rates: The impact of birth centres.
Health Policy. 2020 Dec;124(12):1395-1402. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.10.001. Epub 2020 Oct 10.
8
The Ethics of Perinatal Care for Black Women: Dismantling the Structural Racism in "Mother Blame" Narratives.
J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2019 Apr/Jun;33(2):108-115. doi: 10.1097/JPN.0000000000000394.
9
Community Versus Out-of-Hospital Birth: What's in a Name?
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2019 Jan;64(1):9-11. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12947.
10
Beyond autonomy: Care ethics for midwifery and the humanization of birth.
Nurs Ethics. 2019 Nov-Dec;26(7-8):2147-2157. doi: 10.1177/0969733018819119. Epub 2019 Jan 13.

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