Dilemmas and paradoxes in providing and changing antenatal care: A study of nurses and midwives in rural Zimbabwe

Health Policy and Planning

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 385-393

  Mathole, T ^a,c   Lindmark, G ^a   Ahlberg, B M ^a,b  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Skaraborgs Institutet   (Sweden)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Antenatal care; Evidence based care; Maternal health; Midwifery; Zimbabwe

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAREGIVER; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; MEDICAL STAFF; MIDWIFE; NORMAL HUMAN; NURSE; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL CARE; RURAL AREA; WORK ENVIRONMENT; ZIMBABWE;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; MATERNAL WELFARE; MIDWIFERY; NURSES; PRENATAL CARE; RURAL POPULATION; ZIMBABWE;

EID: 27644497611     PISSN: 02681080     EISSN: 14602237     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czi046     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Bassett MT, Bijlmakers L, Sanders DM. 1997. Professionalism, patient satisfaction and quality of health care: experience during Zimbabwe's structural adjustment programme. Social Science and Medicine 45: 1845-52.
2. Berger P, Luckmann T. 1967. The social construction of everyday life: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
3. Bryar RM. 1995. Theory for midwifery practice. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
4. Chimhete C. 2002. High fees drive patients away from hospitals. The Sunday Mirror 1-03-03.
5. Chinowaita M. 2002. Doctors, nurses in mass exodus. The Daily News, Zimbabwe, 20 November.
6. Crawford P, Brown B, Anthony P, Hicks C. 2002. Reluctant empiricists: community mental health nurses and the art of evidence-based praxis. Health and Social Care in the Community 10: 287-98.
7. Cruickshank CJ. 2000. Report from Nicaragua: midwifery and structural adjustment. Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health 45: 411-5.
8. Davis-Floyd R. 2000. Mutual accommodation or biomedical hegemony? Anthropological perspectives on global issues in midwifery. Midwifery Today Spring (53): 12-16, 68-9.
9. Freeman AC, Sweeney K. 2001. Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: qualitative study. British Medical Journal 323: 1-5.
10. Frohlich KL, Corin E, Potvin L. 2001. A theoretical proposal for the relationship between context and disease. Sociology of Health and Illness 23: 776-97.
11. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
12. Hallberg LR-M. 2002. Methods in public health research: theoretical foundations and practical examples. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
13. Islam MA, Nielsen CC. 1993. Maternal and child health services: evaluating mothers' perceptions and participation. Public Health 107: 243-9.
14. Jewkes R, Abrahams N, Mvo Z. 1998. Why do nurses abuse patients? Reflections from South African obstetric services. Social Science and Medicine 47: 1781-95.
15. Kvale S. 1996. Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16. Langer A, Villar J, Romero M et al. 2002. Are women and providers satisfied with antenatal care? Views on a standard and a simplified, evidence-based model of care in four developing countries. BMC Women's Health 2: 7.
17. Letamo G, Majelantle RG. 2001. Factors influencing low birth weight and prematurity in Botswana. Journal of Biosocial Science 33: 391-403.
18. Lincoln YS. 2001. Engaging sympathies: relationships between action research and social constructivism. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds). Handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage Publications.
19. Lindmark G. 1992. Assessing the scientific basis of antenatal care: the case of Sweden. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 8: 2-7.
20. Lipman T. 2000. Power and influence in clinical effectiveness and evidence-based medicine. Family Practice 17: 557-63.
21. Loewenson R, Sanders D, Davies R. 1991. Challenges to equity in health and health care: a Zimbabwean case study. Social Science and Medicine 32: 1079-88.
22. Majoko F. 1995. The New ANC Package - Gutu Study. Harare: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Zimbabwe.
23. Mayan MJ. 2001. An introduction to qualitative methods: a training module for students and professionals. Alberta: International Institute for Qualitative Methods.
24. Ministry of Health and Child Welfare. 1994. Maternal health care manual for rural health centres/clinic nurses. Harare: Government of Zimbabwe.
25. Morse JM. 1996. Qualitative health research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
26. Mukumbura R. 2000. Zimbabwe: More people turn to traditional medicine. Africanews 18 September; Sect. 1-3.
27. Munjanja SP, Lindmark G, Nystrom L. 1996. Randomised controlled trial of a reduced-visits programme of antenatal care in Harare, Zimbabwe. The Lancet 348: 364-9.
28. Murira N, Munjanja SP, Zhanda I, Lindmark G, Nystrom L. 1996. Health education for pregnancy care in Harare: a survey in seven primary health care clinics. Central African Journal of Medicine 42: 297-301.
29. Ncube J. 2003. With doctors and drugs in short supply, Zimbabwe's traditional healers are coming to the rescue. In: Orbit no. 66: [http://www.oneworld.org/vso/pubs/orbit/66/cure.htm].
30. Nhindiri P, Munjanja SP, Zhanda I. 1996. Utilisation of maternity services: a community based study of Gutu District. African Journal of Health Sciences 3: 120-5.
31. Nygren A. 1999. Local knowledge in the environment-development discourse: from dichotomies to situated knowledge. Critique of Anthropology 19: 267-88.
32. Patton MQ. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
33. Petrou S, Kupek E, Vause S, Maresh M. 2001. Clinical, provider and sociodemographic determinants of the number of antenatal visits in England and Wales. Social Science and Medicine 52: 1123-34.
34. Polit DF, Hungler BP. 1999. Nursing research: principles and methods (sixth edition). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
35. Sanders J, Somerset M, Jewel D, Sharp D. 1999. To see or not to see? Midwives' perceptions of reduced antenatal attendances for 'low risk' women. Midwifery 15: 257-63.
36. Strauss A, Corbin J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
37. Trinder L. 2000. A critical appraisal of evidence-based practice. In: Trinder L, Reynolds S (eds). Evidence-based practice: a critical appraisal. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Company, pp. 212-41.
38. Villar J, Neelofur DK. 1999. Routine antenatal care for low risk pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Perinatal Trials.
39. Villar J, Ba'aqeel H, Piaggio G et al. 2001. WHO antenatal care randomised trial for the evaluation of a new model of routine antenatal care. The Lancet 357: 1551-64.
40. Walker DS, Day S, Diroff C et al. 2002. Reduced frequency prenatal visits in midwifery practice: attitudes and use. Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health 48: 269-77.
41. Whitehead M, Dahlgren G, Evans T. 2001. Equity and health sector reforms: can low-income countries escape the medical poverty trap? The Lancet 358: 833-6.
42. Wong GC, Li VC, Burris MA, Xiang Y. 1995. Seeking women's voices: setting the context for women's health interventions in two rural counties in Yunnan, China. Social Science and Medicine 41: 1147-57.
43. Woodward V. 2000. Caring for women: the potential contribution of formal theory to midwifery practice. Midwifery 16: 68-75.