4.4 Review

Women's experiences of induction of labour: Qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

期刊

MIDWIFERY
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 17-28

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.10.013

关键词

Qualitative synthesis; Induction of labour; Outpatient induction; Women's experiences; Patient-centred healthcare; Birth experiences

类别

资金

  1. City, University of London
  2. National Institute for Health Research [34839]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To explore and synthesise evidence of women's experiences of induction of labour (IoL). Design: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of peer-reviewed qualitative evidence. Relevant databases were searched from inception to the present day. Study quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative research appraisal tool. Setting and participants: Low and high risk women who had experienced IoL in an inpatient or outpatient setting. Findings: Eleven papers (representing 10 original studies) published between 2010 and 2018 were included for thematic synthesis. Four key analytical themes were identified: ways in which decisions regarding induction were made; women's ownership of the process; women's social needs when undergoing IoL; and the importance of place in the induction process. The review indicates that IoL is a challenging experience for women, which can be understood in terms of the gap between women's needs and the reality of their experience concerning information and decision-making, support, and environment. Key conclusions and implications for practice: Providing good quality appropriately timed information and supporting women's self-efficacy to be involved in decision-making around IoL may benefit women by facilitating a sense of ownership or control of labour. Compassionate support from significant others and healthcare professionals in a comfortable, private and safe environment should be available to all women. Crown Copyright (c) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据