Erratum to ‘Reconceptualising Risk in Childbirth’ (Midwifery (2016) 38 (1−5)(S0266613816300717)(10.1016/j.midw.2016.05.012));Reconceptualising risk in childbirth

Midwifery

Volumn 38, Issue , 2016, Pages 1-5

  Coxon, Kirstie ^a   Homer, Caroline ^b,c   Bisits, Andrew ^d   Sandall, Jane ^e   Bick, Debra ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c Barker St Randwick ^*

^d Royal Hospital for Women   (Australia)

^e KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIRTH; FEAR; FEMALE; HUMAN; MIDWIFE; ORGANIZATION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; PROCEDURES; RISK;

FEAR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDWIFERY; ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE; PARTURITION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; RISK;

EID: 84979632789     PISSN: 02666138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2016.09.001     Document Type: Erratum

References (35)

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2011. Planned Home Birth: Committee Opinion. (Number 476, pages 1–4, February 2011, reaffirmed 2015), http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Obstetric-Practice/Planned-Home-Birth, Accessed 03.06.16.
2. Barclay, L., Kornelsen, J., The closure of rural and remote maternity services: Where are the midwives?. Midwifery 38 (2016), 9–11.
3. Beck, U., Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, first ed. 1992, Sage Books, London.
4. Benoit, C,. et al., 2015. Maternity care as a global health policy issue, first ed. In: Benoit, C., Declercq, E., Murray, S.F., Sandall, J., van Teijlingen, E., Wrede, S. (Eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Healthcare Policy and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, UK, pp. 85–100.
5. Birthplace in England Collaborative Group, Perinatal and maternal outcomes by planned place of birth for healthy women with low risk pregnancies: the birthplace in England national prospective cohort study. British Medical Journal 116:9 (2011), 1177–1184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7400.
6. Bisits, A., Risk in obstetrics – perspectives and reflections. Midwifery 38 (2016), 12–13.
7. Coxon, K., Bisits, A., Sandall, J., Call for special issue of midwifery on risk in childbirth. Midwifery 31 (2015), 257–258 Available at http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0266613814002964.
8. Dahlen, H.G., The politicisation of risk. Midwifery 38 (2016), 6–8.
9. Dahlen, H.G., Jackson, M., Stevens, J., Homebirth, freebirth and doulas: casualty and consequences of a broken maternity system. Women and Birth: Journal of the Australian College of Midwives 24 (2011), 47–50 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21163719 (accessed 31.07.14.).
10. Douglas, M., Purity and Danger, first ed. 1966, Routledge, London, New York.
11. Douglas, M., Risk and Blame, first ed. 1992, Routledge, London.
12. Douglas, M., Wildavsky, A., Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, first ed. 1982, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
13. Furedi, F., The objectification of fear and the grammar of morality, first ed. Hier, S., (eds.) Moral Panic and the Politics of Anxiety (Chapter 6), 2011, Routledge, London and New York.
14. Giddens, A., Modernity and Self Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, first ed. 1991, Stanford University Press, California.
15. Heyman, B. et al., 2010. Risk, Safety and Clinical Practice: Health Care Through the Lens of Risk, Available at 〈 http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84921891005&partnerID=40&md5=207ea32c709638ae1b59428e6449a90a〉.
16. Holten, L., de Miranda, E., Women's motivations for having unassisted childbirth or high-risk homebirth: An exploration of the literature on ‘birthing outside the system’. Midwifery 38 (2016), 55–62.
17. Kirkup, B., 2015. The Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation, Available at 〈 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408480/47487_MBI_Accessible_v0.1.pdf〉.
18. Lee, E., et al. Parenting Cultural Studies, 1st edn, 2014, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire.
19. Lee, S., Ayers, S., Holden, D., 2016a. How women with high risk pregnancies perceive interactions with healthcare professionals when discussing place of birth: A qualitative study. Midwifery 38, 42–48.
20. Lee, S., Ayers, S., Holden, D., 2016b. Risk perception and choice of place of birth in women with high risk pregnancies: A qualitative study. Midwifery 38, 49–54.
21. Lee, E., Macvarish, J., Bristow, J., Risk, health and parenting culture. Health, Risk & Society 12 (2010), 293–300 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698571003789732 (accessed 31.07.14.).
22. Lupton, D., Foucault and the medicalisation critique, first ed. Petersen, A., Bunton, R., (eds.) Foucault Health and Medicine, 1997, Routledge, London, 94–112.
23. Lupton, D., “Precious cargo”: foetal subjects, risk and reproductive citizenship. Critical Public Health 22 (2012), 329–340.
24. Lupton, D., 1999. Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives, 1st edn, Lupton, D. (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. McLelland, G., McKenna, L., Morgans, A., Smith, K., 2016. Paramedics' involvement in planned home birth: A one-year case study. Midwifery 38, 71–77.
26. Plested, M., Kirkham, M., 2016. Risk and fear in the lived experience of birth without a midwife. Midwifery 38, 29–34.
27. Posthumus, A.G., van Veen, M.J., Bonsel, G.J., 2016. An antenatal prediction model for adverse birth outcomes in an urban population: The contribution of medical and non-medical risks. Midwifery 38, 78–86.
28. Rothman, B.K., Pregnancy, birth and risk: an introduction. Health, Risk & Society 16 (2014), 1–6, 10.1080/13698575.2013.876191 January 2015.
29. Sandall, J., et al., 2013. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8, p.CD004667. Available at: 〈 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23963739〉 (accessed 20.01.14.).
30. Scamell, M., 2016. The fear factor of risk – clinical governance and midwifery talk and practice in the UK. Midwifery 38, 14–20.
31. Skinner, J., Maude, R., 2016. The tensions of uncertainty: Midwives managing risk in and of their practice. Midwifery 38, 35–41.
32. Striley, K., Field-Springer, K., When it's good to be a bad nurse: expanding risk orders theory to explore nurses’ experiences of moral, social and identity risks in obstetrics units. Health, Risk & Society, 2016, 1–20 Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698575.2016.1169254.
33. Taylor-Gooby, P., Risk and welfare, first ed. Taylor-Gooby, P., (eds.) Risk, Trust and Welfare, 2000, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
34. Van Wagner, V., 2016. Risk talk: Using evidence without increasing fear. Midwifery 38, 21–28.
35. World Health Organisation, WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Human Reproduction Programme, 2015, 1–8 Available at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/161442/1/WHO_RHR_15.02_eng.pdf, Accessed 3.6.16.