1 / 34

Women’s Experiences of Nurse-Midwifery Presence During Childbirth

Women’s Experiences of Nurse-Midwifery Presence During Childbirth. Presenter: Lauren P. Hunter, PhD, CNM Ph: 858-454-9033 email: lhunter@mail.sdsu.edu Affiliation : San Diego State University School of Nursing STTI Chapters: Gamma Gamma, Zeta Mu

Anita
Télécharger la présentation

Women’s Experiences of Nurse-Midwifery Presence During Childbirth

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Women’s Experiences of Nurse-Midwifery Presence During Childbirth Presenter: Lauren P. Hunter, PhD, CNM Ph: 858-454-9033 email: lhunter@mail.sdsu.edu Affiliation : San Diego State University School of Nursing STTI Chapters: Gamma Gamma, Zeta Mu Funding: San Diego State University Faculty- Grant-In –Aid # 242204

  2. Study Purpose • To measure postpartum women’s experience of one aspect of nurse-midwifery care, positive presence, during labor and birth in a hospital setting.

  3. Research Questions Did predominately Latinawomen who were attended by nurse-midwives in a hospital based nurse-midwifery service perceive a positive nurse-midwife presence during their childbirth experience? What effect did the environmental setting either in hospital birth center (IHBC) or in hospital standard labor and delivery unit (SL&DU) have on the degree of positive nurse-midwifery presence experienced by women?

  4. Research Questions Was there a relationship between the amount of positive nurse-midwifery presence experienced by women based upon a woman’s demographic variables, such as ethnicity, length of labor, parity, or organizational factors such as number of nurse-midwifery providers? Was there a relationship between the number and type of personal labor support persons present, such as family members, significant others, or doulas, and the degree of positive nurse-midwifery presence experienced by the woman?

  5. Research Questions Was there a relationship between the use of various types of coping/comfort techniques or medication for pain relief and the degree of positive nurse-midwifery presence experienced by the woman?

  6. Conceptual Definition of Midwifery Positive Presence • “the extent to which the nurse-midwive’s response to the laboring woman encompasses the high touch qualities of nurturance, intuitive awareness, sensitivity, personal attention, knowledge, professional expertise, presumed validity of the individual woman’s subjective experience” • “reflects the one-on–one personal attention and constant availability of the nurse-midwife for the woman in labor” (1p. 44)

  7. Conceptual Definition of Midwifery Positive Presence • Derived from qualitative interviews with women that received CNM care (1) • The definition was validated using theoretical indexing from the literature (1)

  8. Literature Review • Essential hallmark of the ACNM is the value of therapeutic presence (2) • Three American N-M studies (3-5), one metasynthesis (6) and one extensive literature review (7) found presence to be essential from midwive’s and women’s perspectives • Further qualitative studies from 1990 –2005 verify that the definition remains remains valid from women’s perspectives (8-25)

  9. Study Design • Descriptive • Correlational • Non-Probability Sample

  10. Midwifery Positive Presence Index Instrument (MPPI) • 29 item 5 response Likert Scale (max score =203) • Unidimensional scale based on the original conceptual definition of positive presence • Pilot tested on 15 women (Birth Center) • Chronbachs Alpha = .92 • Construct Validity = .77 • Item to Item Correlation Matrix =.42-.69 • Test Retest = .99 • Spearman Brown = .90

  11. Midwifery Positive Presence Index • Further Testing: • 89 low risk postpartum women (BC and Hospital) • Construct Validity = .64 • Principal Components Analysis (Theta Coefficient = .92) • Content Validity re-verified with a sample of PP women (post test focus groups) • Cronbach’s Alpha = .92

  12. Sample of MPPI Items • The nurse-midwife gave me reassurance when things got tough • The nurse-midwife’s touch was comforting • The nurse-midwife was an expert at what she/he did • The nurse-midwife helped me to work with what I was feeling

  13. Setting for Current Study • Low risk postpartum women • Large southwestern hospital • In-Hospital Birth Center • Standard Labor and Delivery Unit • CNM Service 14 CNM’s (10 FT and 4 PT) • 100-125 births /month

  14. Data Collection • Recruitment: • Prior to Discharge • Bilingual Flyer • Verbal Study Description • Bilingual RA • 30 Minutes of Time • Written Consent/Voluntary Participation

  15. Sample Characteristics (N=238) Range MeanSD Age 14-41 25.36 5.97 Gestation 38-42 39.28 1.84 Labor (Hr) 1-41 8.51 6.84 G P 1-13 2.36 1.64 Presence47-203 186.2 21.7

  16. Sample Characteristics (N=238) Gravida/ParityFrequencyPercent (%) Primiparas 87 36.7 Multiparas 139 58.7 Grand Multip 11 4.6

  17. Sample Characteristics (N=238) EthnicityFrequencyPercent (%) Hispanic 176 73.8 Caucasian 46 19.4 Other 14 6.8 Setting IHBC 100 43.1 SLDU 100 43.1 Transfer 38 13.8

  18. Sample Characteristics (N=238) Number ofFrequencyPercent (%) CNM’s One 58 24.0 Two 94 39.7 Three 49 20.7 Four 25 10.5 Five 9 3.8 Six 2 .8

  19. Place of Birth Was Significant ANOVA (F (2,221) = 3.69, p< .03) Pair Wise Comparisons • Presence MeanSD • IHBC 189.92 15.35 • Transfer 191.55 12.91 • SLDU 180.53 27.85

  20. Comfort/Coping Techniques

  21. Comfort/Coping Techniques

  22. Comfort/Coping Techniques Breathing Techniques Were Significant ANOVA(F (1,224) = 7.46, p =. 007) • Breathing Tech MeanSD 189.82 16.79 • No Breathing Tech 182.26 25.72

  23. Comfort/Coping Techniques Music Therapy Was Significant ANOVAF (1,224 = 3.83, p = .05) • Music Therapy MeanSD191.68 12.82 • No Music Therapy 181.35 26.55

  24. Not Significant

  25. Support Persons in ChildbirthNot Significant SupportPersonFrequency (%) • Husband/Partner 192 (81.0) • Mother 64 (27.0) • Doula 50 (21.1) • Sister 38 (16.0) • Other Person 32 (13.5) • Female Friend 23 (9.7) • Mother-in-law 22 (9.3)

  26. Internal Consistency • Present Study/Cronbach’s Alpha = .856 • Original Pilot Test/Cronbach’s Alpha = .92 • Original Study/Cronbach’s Alpha = .92

  27. Conclusions • Generalizable to: postpartum, low risk , young, primarily low income, Latina women • A high level of nurse-midwifery positive presence (186.2) was perceived by women despite today’s current childbirth milieu

  28. Implications for Practice • Women focus on the content of the care provided more than the model of care • Quality of interaction is probably more important than the amount of time spent with women • Encourage the continued use and expansion of nurse-midwives in women’s health care

  29. Implications for Practice • Increase the number of in-hospital birth centers • Smaller case loads of patients during childbirth so nurse-midwifery presence can be even more therapeutic • Breathing techniques and music therapy are helpful adjuncts in midwifery care • Husbands, and female relatives should also be encouraged to provide support

  30. Future Research • Examine the MPPI Index: • in other patient populations • different midwifery services and settings • Examine the relationship of midwifery presence to overall satisfaction with labor and birth and other variables of midwifery care

  31. References • 1. Lehrman EJ. A theoretical framework for nurse-midwifery practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 1988. • 2. American College of Nurse-Midwives. Philosophy of the American College of Nurse-MidwivesWashington DC: ACNM, 2004. • 3. Kennedy H. The essence of nurse-midwifery care. J Nurse-Midwifery 1995;40:410-417. • 4. Kennedy H. A model of exemplary midwifery practice: Results of a Delphi • study. J Midwifery Women's Health 2000;45:4-19. • 5. Thompson JD. Oakley D. Burke M. Jay S. Conklin M. Theory building in nurse-midwifery: The care process. Journal Nurse-Midwifery 1989;34:120-130. • 6. Kennedy H. Rousseau A. Low L.An exploratory metasynthesis of • midwifery practice in the United States. Midwifery 2003;19:203-214.

  32. References • 7. Hunter LP. Being with Woman: A guiding concept for the care of laboring • women. JOGGN 2002;31:650-657. • 8. Berg M. Lundgren I. Hermansson E. Wahlberg V. Women's experience of the encounter with the midwife during childbirth. Midwifery 1996;12:11-15. • 9.Flemming V. (1998). Women-with-midwives-with-women: A model of • interdependence. Midwifery 1998;14:137-143. • 10 Frazer D. Women's perceptions of midwifery care:A longitudinal study to • shape curriculum development. Birth 1999;26:99-107. • 11. Frazer D. Murphy R. Worth-Butler M. A model of competence: The • consumer's perspective.Br J Midwifery 1996;4:576-580. • 12.Halldorsdottir S. Karlsdottir S. Empowerment or discouragement: Women's experience of caring and uncaring encounters during childbirth. Health Care Women Int1996a;17:361-379. • 13. Mosallam M. ThomasL. Ezimokhai M. Women's attitudes towards • psychological support in labour in the United Arab Emirates. Archives Gynecol Obstet 2004;269:181-187.

  33. References • 14. Bluff R. Holloway I. They know best: Women’s perceptions of midwifery • care during labor and birth. Midwifery 1992;10:157-164. • 15. Halldorsdottir S. Karlsdottir S. Journeying through labour and delivery: • Perceptions of women who have given birth. Midwifery 1996b;12:48-61. • 16. Hallgren A.& Kihlgren M. Olsson P. Ways of relating during childbirth: An ethical responsibility and challenge for midwives. Nursing Ethics 2005;12:606-621. • 17. Tarka M. Paunonen M. Social Support and its impact on mothers’ • experiences of childbirth. J Adv Nursing 1996;23:70-75. • 18. Walker J. Hall S. Thomas M. The experience of labour: A perspective from those receiving care in a midwife-led unit. Midwifery 1995;11:120-129. • 19. Walsh D. An ethnographic study of women's experience of partnership • caseload midwifery practice: The professional as a friend. Midwifery 199;15:165-176.

  34. References • 20. Waldenstrom U. Borg I. Olsson B. Skold M. Wall S.. The childbirth experience: A study of 295 new mothers. Birth 1996;23:144-153. • 21. Janssen B. Wiegers T. Strengths and weaknesses of midwifery care from the perspective of women. Evid Based Midwifery 2006;4:53-59. • 22. Lavender T. Walkinshaw S. Walton I. A prospective study of women's views of factors contributing to a positive birth experience. Midwifery 1999;15:328-334. • 23. Too SK. Do birthplans empower women? A study of their views. Nurs Stand1996;10:33-37. • 24. Blix-Lindstrom S. Christensson K. Johansson E. Women's satisfaction with decision-making related to augmentation of labour. Midwifery 2004;20:104-112. • 25. Lundgren I. (2004). Releasing and relieving encounters: Experiences of pregnancy and childbirth. Scand J Caring Sci2004;18:368-375.

More Related