MedElevator
Войти в исследования Sexual & reproductive healthcare : official journal of the Swedish Association of Midwives · 2023
Women's experiences of consent to induction of labour: A qualitative study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kelly Clodagh, Whitten Melissa, Kennedy Sophie, Lanceley Anne, Nicholls Jacqueline
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Induction of labour (IOL) does not require formal written consent, and little is known about how consent operates in this context. This prospective study explores pregnant women's experiences of the IOL consent process.
METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured, interviews with thirteen women admitted to hospital for IOL. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Three themes emerged: 1) Voluntary nature of consent: Some women experienced genuine choice; others perceived pressure to prioritise their baby. 2) Understanding the why and how, risks and benefits: Information provision and explanation was often minimal, particularly regarding risks and alternatives to induction. The possibility of IOL failing was not discussed 3) Non-personalised information process: Few women received information specific and relevant to their circumstance.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is an urgent need for healthcare professionals to be supported in actively facilitating consent consultations which enable women undergoing IOL to make a fully autonomous, informed choice.
CONCLUSIONS: Women did not always experience choice about whether to be induced. This sense of disempowerment was sometimes exacerbated by inadequate information provision. The study reveals a practice imperative to address consent in IOL and we suggest there is an urgent need for HCPs to be offered high quality training specific to IOL.
METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured, interviews with thirteen women admitted to hospital for IOL. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Three themes emerged: 1) Voluntary nature of consent: Some women experienced genuine choice; others perceived pressure to prioritise their baby. 2) Understanding the why and how, risks and benefits: Information provision and explanation was often minimal, particularly regarding risks and alternatives to induction. The possibility of IOL failing was not discussed 3) Non-personalised information process: Few women received information specific and relevant to their circumstance.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is an urgent need for healthcare professionals to be supported in actively facilitating consent consultations which enable women undergoing IOL to make a fully autonomous, informed choice.
CONCLUSIONS: Women did not always experience choice about whether to be induced. This sense of disempowerment was sometimes exacerbated by inadequate information provision. The study reveals a practice imperative to address consent in IOL and we suggest there is an urgent need for HCPs to be offered high quality training specific to IOL.