4.1 Article

A Secondary Analysis of Mistreatment of Women During Childbirth in Health Care Facilities

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogn.2016.08.015

Keywords

birth trauma; content analysis; secondary analysis; traumatic childbirth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To conduct a secondary qualitative analysis of a phenomenological study of traumatic childbirth to identify the types and frequency of mistreatment of women during childbirth in high-income countries. Design: Analytic expansion was the type of secondary analysis chosen to make further use of a primary qualitative data set to ask a new question that was not included the original study aims. Setting: The primary data set of women's experiences of traumatic childbirth was obtained via the Internet. Participants: The Internet sample of 40 mothers consisted of 23 women from New Zealand, 8 from the United States, 6 from Australia, and 3 from the United Kingdom who experienced traumatic births. Methods: Krippendorff's content analysis of categoric distinction was used to analyze the mothers' narratives of their traumatic births. The typology of mistreatment and abuse of women during childbirth in health care facilities worldwide outlined by Bohren et al. provided the categories for the content analysis. Results: Six types of disrespectful and abusive treatment during childbirth were reported by participants, from those reported most often to least often: Failure to Meet Professional Standards of Care, Poor Rapport Between Women and Providers, Verbal Abuse, Physical Abuse, Health System Conditions/ Constraints, and Stigma/ Discrimination. Conclusion: Findings confirm results from studies of mistreatment of women during childbirth in health care facilities in low-and middle-income countries. Prevention and elimination of mistreatment of women during childbirth are the ethical responsibility of all obstetric health care providers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available