Difference between revisions of "Cole-etal2020"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Lindsay Cole; Deborah Turnbull; Hannah Dahlen |Title=How are decisions made to access a planned epidural in labour? Midwife-woman intera...")
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 02:50, 3 January 2020

Key Cole-etal2020
Author(s) Lindsay Cole, Deborah Turnbull, Hannah Dahlen
Title How are decisions made to access a planned epidural in labour? Midwife-woman interactions in antenatal consultations
Tag(s) EMCA, In press, Midwifery, Pregnancy, Medical interaction
Year 2020
Language English
Journal Midwifert
Volume 82
URL Link
DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2019.102618
Book title

Download BibTex


Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in the decision to access a planned epidural in labour was topicalised and negotiated between pregnant women and midwives.

Design This article uses conversation analysis to examine how decision-making unfolds in antenatal consultations in a large metropolitan hospital in South Australia. Data were sampled from naturally-occurring interactions between women and midwives in routine antenatal consultations. Analysis focused on talk about planning to access (or, avoid) an epidural during an upcoming labour.

Findings This paper illustrates that in the context of woman-centred care, women are held unilaterally responsible for the decision to accept or reject a planned epidural in labour with little or no input from the midwife. Midwives take a step back from involvement in the discussion beyond the solicitation of a decision from the woman. Women wanting a planned epidural took a strong, assertive stance in the interaction and drew on their previous birthing experience, limiting opportunity for the midwife to engage in meaningful discussion about the risks and benefits. On the other hand, women rejecting a planned epidural were less assertive and engaged in more complex interactional work to account for their decision.

Key conclusions The lack of involvement by midwives may be linked to the non-directive ethos that prevails in maternity care. It is argued that, in this dataset, the institutional imperative for women to know and decide on pain relief while pregnant in order to allocate to a model of care is prioritised over women's aspirations and expectations of childbirth.

Implications for practice By analysing the ways in which midwives and women interact at the point in time at which decisions were made to plan access to an epidural we can continue to reveal underlying forces that drive the rising rates of medical interventions in childbirth. This paper also contributes to research evidence on how midwives manage the potentially contradictory dialect between supporting women's childbirth preferences while also managing institutional requirements and evidence-based practice.