Show simple item record

Moving Toward Patient‐Centered Care: Women's Decisions, Perceptions, and Experiences of the Induction of Labor Process

dc.contributor.authorMoore, Jennifer E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLow, Lisa Kaneen_US
dc.contributor.authorTitler, Marita G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDalton, Vanessa K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSampselle, Carolyn M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-06-04T14:57:00Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHSen_US
dc.date.available2014-06-04T14:57:00Z
dc.date.issued2014-06en_US
dc.identifier.citationMoore, 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.issn0730-7659en_US
dc.identifier.issn1523-536Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/107354
dc.description.abstractBackground 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.publisherThe Sociology Pressen_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherInformed Shared Decision Makingen_US
dc.subject.otherPatient‐Centered Outcomes Researchen_US
dc.subject.otherInduction of Laboren_US
dc.subject.otherImplementation Scienceen_US
dc.titleMoving Toward Patient‐Centered Care: Women's Decisions, Perceptions, and Experiences of the Induction of Labor Processen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelObstetrics and Gynecologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/107354/1/birt12080.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/birt.12080en_US
dc.identifier.sourceBirthen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSullivan 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.citedreferenceGlaser B. Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press, 1978.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1985.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMozurkewich 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.citedreferenceWorld 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.citedreferenceMoffat 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.citedreferenceCoonrod 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.citedreferenceDublin 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.citedreferenceGlantz JC. Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor associations and outcomes. J Reprod Med 2005; 50 ( 4 ): 235 – 240.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMurthy 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.citedreferenceBaron J, Hershey JC. Outcome bias in decision evaluation. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 54 ( 4 ): 569 – 579.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGlaser B, Strauss A. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press, 1967.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 1984; 39 ( 4 ): 341 – 350.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO'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.citedreferencePayne 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.citedreferenceTversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211 ( 4481 ): 453 – 458.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSimpson KR, Newman G, Chirino OR. Patient education to reduce elective inductions. MCN 2010; 35 ( 4 ): 188 – 194.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSimpson 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.citedreferenceDeclercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MP, et al. Listening to Mothers III: Pregnancy and Birth. New York: Childbirth Connection, 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeclercq 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.citedreferenceEmmett 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.citedreferenceACOG Committee on Ethics. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 439: Informed Consent. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 ( 2 ): 401 – 408.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDeVries 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.citedreferenceEhrenthal 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.citedreferenceKaufman 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.citedreferenceMartin 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.citedreferenceVardo 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.citedreferenceCaughey 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.citedreferenceOshiro 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.citedreferenceMoore 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.citedreferenceFleurence 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.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

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.