The Experiences of Midwives in Caring for Vulnerable Pregnant Women in The Netherlands: A Qualitative Cross-Sectional Study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Vulnerable pregnant women have an increased risk for preterm birth and perinatal mortality. This study identifies the perspectives, perceived barriers, and perceived facilitators of midwives toward current care for vulnerable pregnant women in the Netherlands. Knowing those perspectives, barriers, and facilitators could help increase quality of care, thereby reducing the risks of preterm birth and perinatal mortality. Midwives working in primary care practices throughout the Netherlands were interviewed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely through a video conference program, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded based on the theoretical domains framework and concepts derived from the interviews, using NVivo-12. All midwives provided psychosocial care for vulnerable pregnant women, expected positive consequences for those women resulting from that care, considered it their task to identify and refer vulnerable women, and intended to improve the situation for mother and child. The main barriers perceived by midwives were too many organizations being involved, inadequate communication between care providers, lack of time to care for vulnerable women, insufficient financing to provide adequate care, and uncooperative clients. The main facilitators were having care coordinators, treatment guidelines, vulnerability detection tools, their own knowledge about local psychosocial organizations, good communication skills, cooperative clients, consultation with colleagues, and good communication between care providers. The findings suggest that midwives are highly motivated to care for vulnerable women and perceive a multitude of facilitators. However, they also perceive various barriers for providing optimal care. A national guideline on how to care for vulnerable women, local overviews of involved organizations, and proactive midwives who ensure connections between the psychosocial and medical domain could help to overcome these barriers, and therefore, maximize effectiveness of the care for vulnerable pregnant women.

Related collections

Most cited references 27

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

A Tong, P SAINSBURY, J. Craig (2007)

Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

0 comments Cited 8596 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic

Mary L McHugh (2012)

The kappa statistic is frequently used to test interrater reliability. The importance of rater reliability lies in the fact that it represents the extent to which the data collected in the study are correct representations of the variables measured. Measurement of the extent to which data collectors (raters) assign the same score to the same variable is called interrater reliability. While there have been a variety of methods to measure interrater reliability, traditionally it was measured as percent agreement, calculated as the number of agreement scores divided by the total number of scores. In 1960, Jacob Cohen critiqued use of percent agreement due to its inability to account for chance agreement. He introduced the Cohen’s kappa, developed to account for the possibility that raters actually guess on at least some variables due to uncertainty. Like most correlation statistics, the kappa can range from −1 to +1. While the kappa is one of the most commonly used statistics to test interrater reliability, it has limitations. Judgments about what level of kappa should be acceptable for health research are questioned. Cohen’s suggested interpretation may be too lenient for health related studies because it implies that a score as low as 0.41 might be acceptable. Kappa and percent agreement are compared, and levels for both kappa and percent agreement that should be demanded in healthcare studies are suggested.

0 comments Cited 3219 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research

James Cane, Denise O’Connor, Susan Michie (2012)

Background An integrative theoretical framework, developed for cross-disciplinary implementation and other behaviour change research, has been applied across a wide range of clinical situations. This study tests the validity of this framework. Methods Validity was investigated by behavioural experts sorting 112 unique theoretical constructs using closed and open sort tasks. The extent of replication was tested by Discriminant Content Validation and Fuzzy Cluster Analysis. Results There was good support for a refinement of the framework comprising 14 domains of theoretical constructs (average silhouette value 0.29): ‘Knowledge’, ‘Skills’, ‘Social/Professional Role and Identity’, ‘Beliefs about Capabilities’, ‘Optimism’, ‘Beliefs about Consequences’, ‘Reinforcement’, ‘Intentions’, ‘Goals’, ‘Memory, Attention and Decision Processes’, ‘Environmental Context and Resources’, ‘Social Influences’, ‘Emotions’, and ‘Behavioural Regulation’. Conclusions The refined Theoretical Domains Framework has a strengthened empirical base and provides a method for theoretically assessing implementation problems, as well as professional and other health-related behaviours as a basis for intervention development.