Moving Toward Patient‐Centered Care: Women's Decisions, Perceptions, and Experiences of the Induction of Labor Process
dc.contributor.author | Moore, Jennifer E. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Low, Lisa Kane | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Titler, Marita G. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Dalton, Vanessa K. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Sampselle, Carolyn M. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-06-04T14:57:00Z | |
dc.date.available | WITHHELD_13_MONTHS | en_US |
dc.date.available | 2014-06-04T14:57:00Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2014-06 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Moore, Jennifer E.; Low, Lisa Kane; Titler, Marita G.; Dalton, Vanessa K.; Sampselle, Carolyn M. (2014). "Moving Toward Patient‐Centered Care: Women's Decisions, Perceptions, and Experiences of the Induction of Labor Process." Birth 41(2): 138-146. | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0730-7659 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1523-536X | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/107354 | |
dc.description.abstract | Background Patient preferences and clinician practices are possible causative factors to explain the increase in induction of labor, but scientific studies that demonstrate this link are limited. The purpose of this study is to identify factors that influence inductions from the perspective of women. Methods A qualitative investigation using grounded theory methodology was conducted. Women were interviewed preinduction and postinduction. Analysis of the interviews was conducted using constant comparison to identify codes, categories, and themes. Through this process the complex intersection between women, their clinician, and the application of evidence‐based care in clinical practice was explored. Results Five major themes from the preinduction interview were identified; safety of baby, women's trust in their clinician, relief of discomfort and/or anxiety, diminish potential or actual risk, and lack of informed decision making. Five major themes were identified from the postinduction interview; lack of informed decision making, induction as part of a checklist, women's trust in their clinician, happy with induction, and opportunities to improve the experience. Conclusions Lack of informed decision making was cited as a barrier to optimal care. This study has important implications for patient‐centered research and clinical care, requiring the inclusion of women and the salient concepts of care that they identify. | en_US |
dc.publisher | The Sociology Press | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Informed Shared Decision Making | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Induction of Labor | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Implementation Science | en_US |
dc.title | Moving Toward Patient‐Centered Care: Women's Decisions, Perceptions, and Experiences of the Induction of Labor Process | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Obstetrics and Gynecology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/107354/1/birt12080.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/birt.12080 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Birth | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sullivan KE, Hebert PC, Logan J, et al. What do physicians tell patients with end‐stage COPD about intubation and mechanical ventilation? Chest 1996; 109 ( 1 ): 258 – 264. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Glaser B. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press, 1978. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1985. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mozurkewich E, Chilimigras J, Koepke E, et al. Indications for induction of labour: A best‐evidence review. BJOG 2009; 116 ( 5 ): 626 – 636. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for induction of labour. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2011. Accessed January 13, 2012. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501156_eng.pdf. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Moffat MA, Bell JS, Porter MA, et al. Decision making about mode of delivery among pregnant women who have previously had a caesarean section: A qualitative study. BJOG 2006; 114 ( 1 ): 86 – 93. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Coonrod DV, Bay RC, Kishi GY. The epidemiology of labor induction: Arizona 1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182 ( 6 ): 1355 – 1361. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Dublin S, LydonRochelle M, Kaplan RC, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183 ( 4 ): 986 – 994. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Glantz JC. Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomes. J Reprod Med 2005; 50 ( 4 ): 235 – 240. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Murthy K, Grobman WA, Lee TA, Holl JL. Trends in induction of labor at early‐term gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204 ( 5 ):435. e1 – e6. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Baron J, Hershey JC. Outcome bias in decision evaluation. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 54 ( 4 ): 569 – 579. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Glaser B, Strauss A. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press, 1967. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 1984; 39 ( 4 ): 341 – 350. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | O'Connor AM, Pennie RA, Dales RE. Framing effects on expectations, decision, and side effects experienced: The case of the influenza immunization. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49 ( 11 ): 1271 – 1276. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Payne JW. Information processing theory: Some concepts and methods applied to decision research. In: Wallsten TS, ed. Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1980: 95 – 115. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211 ( 4481 ): 453 – 458. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Simpson KR, Newman G, Chirino OR. Patient education to reduce elective inductions. MCN 2010; 35 ( 4 ): 188 – 194. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Simpson KR, Newman G, Chirino OR. Patients' perspectives on the role of prepared childbirth education in decision making regarding elective labor induction. J Perinat Educ 2010; 19 ( 3 ): 21 – 32. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Declercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MP, et al. Listening to Mothers III: Pregnancy and Birth. New York: Childbirth Connection, 2013. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Declercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MA, Applebaum S. Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection, 2006. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Emmett CL, Shaw ARG, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ. Women's experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: The role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG 2006; 113 ( 12 ): 1438 – 1445. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | ACOG Committee on Ethics. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 439: Informed Consent. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 ( 2 ): 401 – 408. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | DeVries R, Salvesen H, Wiegers T, Williams A. What (and why) do women want? The desires of women and the design of maternity care. In: DeVries R, Benoit C, van Teijlingen E, Wrede S, Eds. Birth by Design: Pregnancy, Maternity Care, and Midwifery in North America and Europe. New York: Routledge, 2001: 243 – 267. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ehrenthal DB, Jiang X, Strobino DM. Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 ( 1 ): 35 – 42. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kaufman KE, Balit JL, Grobman W. Elective induction: An analysis of economic and health consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187 ( 4 ): 858 – 863. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al. Births: Final data for 2007. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2010. Accessed July 8, 2012. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_24.pdf. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Vardo JH, Thornburg LL, Glantz JC. Maternal and neonatal morbidity among nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labor. J Reprod Med 2011; 56 ( 1–2 ): 25 – 30. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Evidence report: Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. Evidence Report/TechnologyAssessment No. 176. Rockville, MD.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009. Accessed December 16, 2009. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/elindlabor/eilabr.pdf. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Oshiro BT, Henry E, Wilson J, et al. Decreasing elective deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation in an integrated health care system. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 ( 4 ): 804 – 811. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Moore JE, Low LK. Factors that influence the practice of elective induction of labor: What does the evidence tell us? J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2012; 26 ( 3 ): 1 – 9. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Fleurence R, Selby JV, Odom‐Walker K, et al. How the patient‐centered outcomes research institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013; 32 ( 2 ): 393 – 400. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.