4.4 Article

Women's experiences of labour and birth: an evolutionary concept analysis

Journal

MIDWIFERY
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages E49-E59

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2007.07.010

Keywords

Concept analysis; Women's; Experiences; Labour; Birth; Childbirth; Rodgers

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: the aim of this paper is to identify the core attributes of the experience of labour and birth. Methods: a literature search was conducted using a variety of online databases for the years 1990-2005. A thematic analysis of a random sample of 62 of these papers identified the main characteristics of the experience of childbirth. There are multiple methodological challenges in researching the experience of labour and birth, and in developing the existing complexity of evidence. Results: despite agreement across disciplines regarding the significance of the childbirth experience, there is little consensus on a conceptual definition. Four main attributes of the experience were described as individual, complex, process and life event. Through this concept analysis, the experiences of labour and birth is defined as an individual life event, incorporating interrelated subjective psychological and physiological process, influenced by social, environmental, organisational and policy contexts. Conclusions: identification of the core of the labour and birth experience may provide a framework for future consideration and investigation including further analysis of related concepts such as 'support' and 'control'. Implications for practice: paractitioners and researchers have already identified the diversity and complexity of women's experiences during labour and birth. The importance of the identified attributes also requires organizational and policy development within the context of a cultural environment that acknowledges this diversity. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available