Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?

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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2004-12, Vol.111 (12), p.1388-1393
Hauptverfasser: Reime, Birgit, Klein, Michael C., Kelly, Ann, Duxbury, Nancy, Saxell, Lee, Liston, Robert, Prompers, Frédérique Josephine Petra Maria, Entjes, Robert Stefan Willem, Wong, Victor
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1393
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1388
container_title BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
container_volume 111
creator Reime, Birgit
Klein, Michael C.
Kelly, Ann
Duxbury, Nancy
Saxell, Lee
Liston, Robert
Prompers, Frédérique Josephine Petra Maria
Entjes, Robert Stefan Willem
Wong, Victor
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00338.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_764240007</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67231469</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5468-171da77044601d8ecfd8e81f389ecdcdd695753aa695f711ad47dbb7d95fcc0b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkElPxCAUgInRuP8Fw0U9tT4Khc5F475kkrnomVCgyqQzHYGq8-9llujNyOEt4Xvw8iGECeQknbNxTpggGZRFlRcALAegtMq_NtDuz8XmsoYMaFHtoL0QxgCEF0C30Q4pOaekYLvo8abDExWtn7o4x1p5i2e--3DGevzqu34W8Jv6sNi4prHeTiNWMbrYGxtw7D6VNwHXzse3iwO01ag22MN13kcvd7fP1w_ZcHT_eH05zHTJeJURQYwSAhjjQExldZNCRRpaDaw22hg-KEVJlUq5EYQow4Spa2FSqzXUdB-drt5Ne773NkQ5cUHbtlVT2_VBCs4KBgAikSd_klwUlDA-SGC1ArXvQvC2kTPvJsrPJQG5EC7HcuFVLrzKhXC5FC6_0ujR-o--nljzO7g2nIDjNaCCVm3j1VS78MtxWgBhkLjzFffpWjv_9wLy6mm0LOk30LacEA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67231469</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Reime, Birgit ; Klein, Michael C. ; Kelly, Ann ; Duxbury, Nancy ; Saxell, Lee ; Liston, Robert ; Prompers, Frédérique Josephine Petra Maria ; Entjes, Robert Stefan Willem ; Wong, Victor</creator><creatorcontrib>Reime, Birgit ; Klein, Michael C. ; Kelly, Ann ; Duxbury, Nancy ; Saxell, Lee ; Liston, Robert ; Prompers, Frédérique Josephine Petra Maria ; Entjes, Robert Stefan Willem ; Wong, Victor</creatorcontrib><description>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 &lt; 0.001), that epidurals early in labour were not associated with development of fetal malpositions (P &lt; 0.001) and that increasing caesarean rates were a sign of improvement in obstetrics (P &lt; 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 &lt; 0.001) and were least likely to encourage the use of birth plans (P &lt; 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1470-0328</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-0528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00338.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15663124</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK and Malden, USA: Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Analgesia, Epidural ; Analgesia, Obstetrical ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cluster Analysis ; Delivery, Obstetric - psychology ; Episiotomy ; Female ; Fetal Monitoring ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Humans ; Labor, Induced ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Nurse Midwives - psychology ; Obstetrics ; Physicians, Family - psychology ; Pregnancy ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Vaginal Birth after Cesarean</subject><ispartof>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2004-12, Vol.111 (12), p.1388-1393</ispartof><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5468-171da77044601d8ecfd8e81f389ecdcdd695753aa695f711ad47dbb7d95fcc0b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5468-171da77044601d8ecfd8e81f389ecdcdd695753aa695f711ad47dbb7d95fcc0b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1471-0528.2004.00338.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1471-0528.2004.00338.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=16320140$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15663124$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Reime, Birgit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klein, Michael C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelly, Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duxbury, Nancy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saxell, Lee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liston, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prompers, Frédérique Josephine Petra Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Entjes, Robert Stefan Willem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Victor</creatorcontrib><title>Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?</title><title>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</title><addtitle>BJOG</addtitle><description>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 &lt; 0.001), that epidurals early in labour were not associated with development of fetal malpositions (P &lt; 0.001) and that increasing caesarean rates were a sign of improvement in obstetrics (P &lt; 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 &lt; 0.001) and were least likely to encourage the use of birth plans (P &lt; 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.</description><subject>Analgesia, Epidural</subject><subject>Analgesia, Obstetrical</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cluster Analysis</subject><subject>Delivery, Obstetric - psychology</subject><subject>Episiotomy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fetal Monitoring</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Labor, Induced</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Nurse Midwives - psychology</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Physicians, Family - psychology</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Vaginal Birth after Cesarean</subject><issn>1470-0328</issn><issn>1471-0528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkElPxCAUgInRuP8Fw0U9tT4Khc5F475kkrnomVCgyqQzHYGq8-9llujNyOEt4Xvw8iGECeQknbNxTpggGZRFlRcALAegtMq_NtDuz8XmsoYMaFHtoL0QxgCEF0C30Q4pOaekYLvo8abDExWtn7o4x1p5i2e--3DGevzqu34W8Jv6sNi4prHeTiNWMbrYGxtw7D6VNwHXzse3iwO01ag22MN13kcvd7fP1w_ZcHT_eH05zHTJeJURQYwSAhjjQExldZNCRRpaDaw22hg-KEVJlUq5EYQow4Spa2FSqzXUdB-drt5Ne773NkQ5cUHbtlVT2_VBCs4KBgAikSd_klwUlDA-SGC1ArXvQvC2kTPvJsrPJQG5EC7HcuFVLrzKhXC5FC6_0ujR-o--nljzO7g2nIDjNaCCVm3j1VS78MtxWgBhkLjzFffpWjv_9wLy6mm0LOk30LacEA</recordid><startdate>200412</startdate><enddate>200412</enddate><creator>Reime, Birgit</creator><creator>Klein, Michael C.</creator><creator>Kelly, Ann</creator><creator>Duxbury, Nancy</creator><creator>Saxell, Lee</creator><creator>Liston, Robert</creator><creator>Prompers, Frédérique Josephine Petra Maria</creator><creator>Entjes, Robert Stefan Willem</creator><creator>Wong, Victor</creator><general>Blackwell Science Ltd</general><general>Blackwell</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200412</creationdate><title>Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?</title><author>Reime, Birgit ; Klein, Michael C. ; Kelly, Ann ; Duxbury, Nancy ; Saxell, Lee ; Liston, Robert ; Prompers, Frédérique Josephine Petra Maria ; Entjes, Robert Stefan Willem ; Wong, Victor</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5468-171da77044601d8ecfd8e81f389ecdcdd695753aa695f711ad47dbb7d95fcc0b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Analgesia, Epidural</topic><topic>Analgesia, Obstetrical</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cluster Analysis</topic><topic>Delivery, Obstetric - psychology</topic><topic>Episiotomy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fetal Monitoring</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Labor, Induced</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Nurse Midwives - psychology</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Physicians, Family - psychology</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Vaginal Birth after Cesarean</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Reime, Birgit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klein, Michael C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelly, Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duxbury, Nancy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saxell, Lee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liston, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prompers, Frédérique Josephine Petra Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Entjes, Robert Stefan Willem</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Victor</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><jtitle>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Reime, Birgit</au><au>Klein, Michael C.</au><au>Kelly, Ann</au><au>Duxbury, Nancy</au><au>Saxell, Lee</au><au>Liston, Robert</au><au>Prompers, Frédérique Josephine Petra Maria</au><au>Entjes, Robert Stefan Willem</au><au>Wong, Victor</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?</atitle><jtitle>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</jtitle><addtitle>BJOG</addtitle><date>2004-12</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>111</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1388</spage><epage>1393</epage><pages>1388-1393</pages><issn>1470-0328</issn><eissn>1471-0528</eissn><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 &lt; 0.001), that epidurals early in labour were not associated with development of fetal malpositions (P &lt; 0.001) and that increasing caesarean rates were a sign of improvement in obstetrics (P &lt; 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 &lt; 0.001) and were least likely to encourage the use of birth plans (P &lt; 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.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK and Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Ltd</pub><pmid>15663124</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00338.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1470-0328
ispartof BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2004-12, Vol.111 (12), p.1388-1393
issn 1470-0328
1471-0528
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_764240007
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Analgesia, Epidural
Analgesia, Obstetrical
Attitude of Health Personnel
Biological and medical sciences
Cluster Analysis
Delivery, Obstetric - psychology
Episiotomy
Female
Fetal Monitoring
Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Humans
Labor, Induced
Male
Medical sciences
Nurse Midwives - psychology
Obstetrics
Physicians, Family - psychology
Pregnancy
Surveys and Questionnaires
Vaginal Birth after Cesarean
title Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T14%3A12%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20maternity%20care%20provider%20groups%20have%20different%20attitudes%20towards%20birth?&rft.jtitle=BJOG%20:%20an%20international%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynaecology&rft.au=Reime,%20Birgit&rft.date=2004-12&rft.volume=111&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1388&rft.epage=1393&rft.pages=1388-1393&rft.issn=1470-0328&rft.eissn=1471-0528&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00338.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67231469%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67231469&rft_id=info:pmid/15663124&rfr_iscdi=true