"Choice" and place of delivery: A qualitative study of women in remote and rural Scotland

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 42-48

  Pitchforth, E ^a,f   Van Teijlingen, E ^b   Watson, V ^b   Tucker, J ^b,c   Kiger, A ^b   Ireland, J ^d   Farmer, J ^e   Rennie, A M ^d   Gibb, S ^d   Thomson, E ^b   Ryan, M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS   (United Kingdom)

^f LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; MIDWIFERY; PREGNANCY; RURAL HEALTH SERVICES; SCOTLAND;

EID: 61849126721     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: 14753901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2007.023572     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Department of Health. Patient and public involvement in health: the evidence for policy implementation. London: Department of Health, 2004.
2. O'Cathain A, Goode J, Strangleman T, et al. Does NHS Direct empower patients? Soc Sci Med 2005; 61:1761-71.
3. Department of Health. Changing childbirth. London: HMSO, 1993.
4. Department of Health. Maternity standard, National Service framework for children, young people and maternity services. London: Department of Health, 2004.
5. Department of Health, and Partnerships for Children, Families and Maternity. Maternity matters: choice, access and continuity of care in a safe service. London: Department of Health, 2007.
6. NICE. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. Final draft for consultation. London: NICE, 2006.
7. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The future of obstetrics and gynaecology in Scotland. Service Provision and Workforce Planning. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2005.
8. Scottish Office Department of Health. Acute services review report. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office, 1998.
9. Scottish Executive Health Department. National framework for service change in NHS Scotland. Edinburgh: NHS Scotland, 2005.
10. Buske L. A crisis aborning in maternity and newborn care? Can Med Assoc J 2001; 164:681.
11. Joyce C, McNeill J, Stoelwinder J. More doctors, but not enough: Australian medical workforce supply 2001-2012. Med J Aust 2006; 184:441-6.
12. Strasser R, Hays R, Klamien M, et al. Is Australian rural practice changing? Findings from the National Rural General Practice Study. Aust J Rural Health 2000; 8:222-26.
13. Roach SM, Downes S. Caring for Australia's most remote communities: obstetric services in the Indian Ocean Territories. Rural Remote Health 2007; 7:699. http://www.rrh.org.au (accessed 22 Jul 2008).
14. Campbell R, MacFarlane A. Where to be born? The debate and evidence. 2nd edn. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, 1994.
15. Department of Health. Report to the Department of Health Children's Taskforce from the Maternity and Neonatal Working Group. London: Department of Health, 2003.
16. Williams N, Shucksmith M, Edmond H, et al. Scottish rural life update: a revised socio-economic profile of rural Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Office Central Research Unit/TSO, 1998.
17. Bryant J, Porter M, Tracy SK, et al. Caesarean birth: consumption, safety, order, and good mothering. Soc Sci Med 2007; 65:1192-201.
18. Barber T, Rogers J, Marsh S. The birth place choices project: phase one. Br J Midwif 2006; 14:609-13.
19. Gibbs A. Focus groups. Social research update. Issue 19. In: Gilbert N, ed. Guildford: University of Surrey, 1997. http://www.soc.surrey. ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html (accessed 22 Jul 2008).
20. Teijlingen van E, Pitchforth, E. Focus group research in family planning and reproductive health care. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006; 32:30-32.
21. Tucker J, Farmer J, Bryers H, et al. Sustainable maternity service provision in remote and rural Scotland: implementing and evaluating maternity care models for remote and rural Scotland. Dumfries: RARARI, 2006.
22. Pitchforth E, Watson V, Tucker J, et al. Models of intrapartum care and women's trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed methods study. BJOG 2008; 115:560-9.
23. Forrest Keenan K, Teijlingen van ER, Pitchforth E. The analysis of qualitative research data in family planning and reproductive health care. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2005; 31:40-3.
24. Westfall R, Benoit C. The rhetoric of "natural" childbirth. Soc Sci Med 2004; 59:1397-408.
25. Cioffi D, Garner R. On doing the decision: effects of active versus passive choice on commitment and self-perception. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1996; 22:133-47.
26. Lupton D. Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45:373-81.
27. Lippman A. Choice as risk to women's health. Health Risk Soc 1999; 1:281-91.
28. Kornelsen J, Gryzbowski S. The reality of resistance: the experiences of rural parturient women. J Midwif Wom Health 2006; 51:260-5.
29. Fisher C, Hauck Y, Fenwick J. How social context impacts on women's fears of childbirth: A Western Australian example. Soc Sci Med 2006; 63:64-75.
30. Witz A. Professions and patriarchy. London: Routledge, 1992.
31. Hunter LP. Women give birth and pizzas are delivered: language and western childbirth paradigms. J Midwif Wom Health 2006; 51;119-24.
32. Hyde A, Roche-Reid B. Midwifery practice and the crisis of modernity: implications for the role of the midwife. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58:2613-23.
33. Kennedy HP, Shannon MT, Chuahorm U, et al. The landscape of caring for women: a narrative study of midwifery practice. J Midwif Wom Health 2004; 49:14-23.
34. Robinson A, Thomson R. Variability in patient preferences for participating in medical decision making: implication for the use of decision support tools. Qual Saf Health Care 2001; 10(I Suppl):i34-8S.
35. Lyons M. Should patients have a role in patient safety? A safety engineering view. Qual Saf Health Care 2007; 16:140-2.
36. Teijlingen van E. A critical analysis of the medical model as used in the study of pregnancy and childbirth. Sociol Res Online 2005;10. http://www.socresonline.org. uk/10/2/teijlingen.html (accessed 22 Jul 2008).
37. Walsh D, Downe S. Outcomes of freestanding, midwife-led birth centers: a structured review. Birth 2004; 31:222-9.
38. Scottish Executive Health Department. National framework for maternity services in Scotland. Edinburgh: Tactica Solutions, 2001.
39. Tucker J, Graham W, Hall MH. Limited access to alternative models of care in UK maternity services: barriers to change. In: Davies H, Tavakoli M, Malek M, eds. Quality in health care: strategic issues in health care management. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001:215-26.