健康政策及其对助产士-妇女伙伴关系的意外后果:使用BMI测量时,正常妊娠是否有风险?

S. Knox, S. Crowther, Judith McAra-Couper, A. Gilkison
{"title":"健康政策及其对助产士-妇女伙伴关系的意外后果:使用BMI测量时,正常妊娠是否有风险?","authors":"S. Knox, S. Crowther, Judith McAra-Couper, A. Gilkison","doi":"10.12784/NZCOMJNL54.2018.4.30-37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Little attention has been paid to understanding the unintended consequences of health policy for midwife-woman partnerships. The measure of Body Mass Index (BMI) is one such policy example which has become established in contemporary midwifery practice as a tool for assessing pregnancy risk. The universal acceptance of BMI creates an unsettling paradox for midwives concerned with promoting woman-centred practice. The increasing focus on BMI is challenging for midwives as they navigate ethical tensions when directed to undertake practices which have potential unwonted consequences for the midwife-woman partnership. Aim: The aim of the study was to explore the use of an indicator, using BMI as an example, to provide an international perspective on obesity prevention policy and maternity care provision. Method: A comparative case study approach was taken, using descriptive cross-national comparative analysis of obesity prevention policy, weight management guidelines and midwifery models of care in New Zealand and Scotland. Discussion: Despite promoting healthy weight gain in pregnancy, New Zealand and Scottish health policies may be missing health promotion opportunities. Focusing on BMI in maternity, per se, should not prohibit other assessment of lifestyle issues or delivery of services based on individual needs, capacities, histories and sociological characteristics. Relying solely on pre-pregnancy BMI as a marker of health in all women has remained relatively unchallenged and, as such, constitutes a policy problem because it occludes the factoring in of other lifestyle issues that may significantly alter individual risk status. Further, such an assessment of risk status is ideally arrived at within a partnership model of maternity care, rather than reliance on an a priori medical test. Conclusion: Decontextualised policies are challenging for midwives where medical and midwifery values are in conflict. Policy which fails to consider the multiple and complex contexts of women's lives is confronting for midwives as they attempt to re-articulate the meaning of woman-centred practice. Furthermore, BMI as a tool may be ineffectual. The current focus on BMI in policy and practice requires re-consideration.","PeriodicalId":137118,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand College of Midwives Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health policy and its unintended consequences for midwife-woman partnerships: Is normal pregnancy at risk when the BMI measure is used?\",\"authors\":\"S. Knox, S. Crowther, Judith McAra-Couper, A. Gilkison\",\"doi\":\"10.12784/NZCOMJNL54.2018.4.30-37\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Little attention has been paid to understanding the unintended consequences of health policy for midwife-woman partnerships. The measure of Body Mass Index (BMI) is one such policy example which has become established in contemporary midwifery practice as a tool for assessing pregnancy risk. The universal acceptance of BMI creates an unsettling paradox for midwives concerned with promoting woman-centred practice. The increasing focus on BMI is challenging for midwives as they navigate ethical tensions when directed to undertake practices which have potential unwonted consequences for the midwife-woman partnership. Aim: The aim of the study was to explore the use of an indicator, using BMI as an example, to provide an international perspective on obesity prevention policy and maternity care provision. Method: A comparative case study approach was taken, using descriptive cross-national comparative analysis of obesity prevention policy, weight management guidelines and midwifery models of care in New Zealand and Scotland. Discussion: Despite promoting healthy weight gain in pregnancy, New Zealand and Scottish health policies may be missing health promotion opportunities. Focusing on BMI in maternity, per se, should not prohibit other assessment of lifestyle issues or delivery of services based on individual needs, capacities, histories and sociological characteristics. Relying solely on pre-pregnancy BMI as a marker of health in all women has remained relatively unchallenged and, as such, constitutes a policy problem because it occludes the factoring in of other lifestyle issues that may significantly alter individual risk status. Further, such an assessment of risk status is ideally arrived at within a partnership model of maternity care, rather than reliance on an a priori medical test. Conclusion: Decontextualised policies are challenging for midwives where medical and midwifery values are in conflict. Policy which fails to consider the multiple and complex contexts of women's lives is confronting for midwives as they attempt to re-articulate the meaning of woman-centred practice. Furthermore, BMI as a tool may be ineffectual. The current focus on BMI in policy and practice requires re-consideration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":137118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Zealand College of Midwives Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Zealand College of Midwives Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12784/NZCOMJNL54.2018.4.30-37\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand College of Midwives Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12784/NZCOMJNL54.2018.4.30-37","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:很少注意了解卫生政策对助产士-妇女伙伴关系的意外后果。身体质量指数(BMI)的测量就是这样一个政策例子,它已在当代助产实践中确立为评估怀孕风险的工具。对BMI的普遍接受给助产士带来了一个令人不安的悖论,助产士关注的是促进以女性为中心的实践。对身体质量指数的日益关注对助产士来说是一个挑战,因为当她们被指示进行可能对助产士和妇女的伙伴关系产生罕见后果的实践时,她们要应对道德紧张。目的:本研究的目的是探索一种指标的使用,以BMI为例,为肥胖预防政策和产妇护理提供国际视角。方法:采用比较案例研究方法,对新西兰和苏格兰的肥胖预防政策、体重管理指南和助产护理模式进行描述性的跨国比较分析。讨论:尽管新西兰和苏格兰的卫生政策促进了孕期体重的健康增长,但它们可能错过了促进健康的机会。关注产妇的身体质量指数本身不应禁止对生活方式问题进行其他评估或根据个人需求、能力、历史和社会学特征提供服务。仅依靠孕前体重指数作为所有妇女健康状况的标志仍然相对没有受到挑战,因此,这构成了一个政策问题,因为它忽略了可能显著改变个人风险状况的其他生活方式问题。此外,这种风险状况的评估最好是在产妇护理的伙伴关系模式下进行,而不是依赖先验的医学检查。结论:在医疗和助产价值观冲突的地方,非情境化政策对助产士来说是一项挑战。当助产士试图重新阐明以妇女为中心的实践的意义时,他们面临的政策未能考虑到妇女生活的多重和复杂背景。此外,BMI作为一种工具可能是无效的。目前政策和实践中对BMI的关注需要重新考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Health policy and its unintended consequences for midwife-woman partnerships: Is normal pregnancy at risk when the BMI measure is used?
Background: Little attention has been paid to understanding the unintended consequences of health policy for midwife-woman partnerships. The measure of Body Mass Index (BMI) is one such policy example which has become established in contemporary midwifery practice as a tool for assessing pregnancy risk. The universal acceptance of BMI creates an unsettling paradox for midwives concerned with promoting woman-centred practice. The increasing focus on BMI is challenging for midwives as they navigate ethical tensions when directed to undertake practices which have potential unwonted consequences for the midwife-woman partnership. Aim: The aim of the study was to explore the use of an indicator, using BMI as an example, to provide an international perspective on obesity prevention policy and maternity care provision. Method: A comparative case study approach was taken, using descriptive cross-national comparative analysis of obesity prevention policy, weight management guidelines and midwifery models of care in New Zealand and Scotland. Discussion: Despite promoting healthy weight gain in pregnancy, New Zealand and Scottish health policies may be missing health promotion opportunities. Focusing on BMI in maternity, per se, should not prohibit other assessment of lifestyle issues or delivery of services based on individual needs, capacities, histories and sociological characteristics. Relying solely on pre-pregnancy BMI as a marker of health in all women has remained relatively unchallenged and, as such, constitutes a policy problem because it occludes the factoring in of other lifestyle issues that may significantly alter individual risk status. Further, such an assessment of risk status is ideally arrived at within a partnership model of maternity care, rather than reliance on an a priori medical test. Conclusion: Decontextualised policies are challenging for midwives where medical and midwifery values are in conflict. Policy which fails to consider the multiple and complex contexts of women's lives is confronting for midwives as they attempt to re-articulate the meaning of woman-centred practice. Furthermore, BMI as a tool may be ineffectual. The current focus on BMI in policy and practice requires re-consideration.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The lactation and chestfeeding/breastfeeding information, care and support needs of trans and non-binary parents: An integrative literature review A vision of decolonisation: Midwifery mentoring from the perspective of Māori mentors Midwives' perceptions of enablers and barriers to pertussis and influenza vaccination in pregnancy and information sharing Timing of cord clamping: An observational study of cord clamping practice in a maternity hospital in Aotearoa New Zealand Editorial: "Turn left at the large flax." How times have changed
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1