患者对分娩镇痛和分娩镇痛的看法:一项针对选择不使用神经镇痛分娩的产妇的试点定性研究。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY International journal of obstetric anesthesia Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104294
E.R. Weinstein , J. Aaronson , S.E. Abramovitz , D. McCullough , R. Gotian , R.S. White
{"title":"患者对分娩镇痛和分娩镇痛的看法:一项针对选择不使用神经镇痛分娩的产妇的试点定性研究。","authors":"E.R. Weinstein ,&nbsp;J. Aaronson ,&nbsp;S.E. Abramovitz ,&nbsp;D. McCullough ,&nbsp;R. Gotian ,&nbsp;R.S. White","doi":"10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Studies have identified widespread variation in neuraxial labor analgesia use by race, ethnicity, and geographic location. However, limited research has investigated patient-level factors in the decision not to use neuraxial analgesia for labor.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted semi-structured interviews at a New York City medical center from October 1, 2022, to May 30, 2023. Participants had delivered vaginally and selected not to receive neuraxial labor analgesia. Structured demographic questions were asked after interview completion. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analyzed data and grouped responses into themes according to grounded theory.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified five themes encompassing the main factors participants had considered when deciding not to receive neuraxial analgesia for birth: preferences for a natural birth experience, an empowering and supportive labor environment, preparation or preparedness for birth without medication, positive outlook on labor pain, and information, misinformation, knowledge gaps and fears about the epidural. All study participants mentioned these overarching themes in their interviews.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Participants described various factors important in their decision to give birth without an epidural, which we mapped onto five primary themes. Our results can be used to guide effective patient-provider interactions centered on mutual understanding, evidence-based medicine, and honoring patients’ wishes. The information gathered may provide insight into how providers can incorporate shared decision-making into their practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":14250,"journal":{"name":"International journal of obstetric anesthesia","volume":"61 ","pages":"Article 104294"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patients’ perspectives on pain relief during childbirth and labor epidurals: A pilot qualitative study among women who chose to deliver without neuraxial labor analgesia\",\"authors\":\"E.R. Weinstein ,&nbsp;J. Aaronson ,&nbsp;S.E. Abramovitz ,&nbsp;D. McCullough ,&nbsp;R. Gotian ,&nbsp;R.S. White\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijoa.2024.104294\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Studies have identified widespread variation in neuraxial labor analgesia use by race, ethnicity, and geographic location. However, limited research has investigated patient-level factors in the decision not to use neuraxial analgesia for labor.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted semi-structured interviews at a New York City medical center from October 1, 2022, to May 30, 2023. Participants had delivered vaginally and selected not to receive neuraxial labor analgesia. Structured demographic questions were asked after interview completion. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analyzed data and grouped responses into themes according to grounded theory.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified five themes encompassing the main factors participants had considered when deciding not to receive neuraxial analgesia for birth: preferences for a natural birth experience, an empowering and supportive labor environment, preparation or preparedness for birth without medication, positive outlook on labor pain, and information, misinformation, knowledge gaps and fears about the epidural. All study participants mentioned these overarching themes in their interviews.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Participants described various factors important in their decision to give birth without an epidural, which we mapped onto five primary themes. Our results can be used to guide effective patient-provider interactions centered on mutual understanding, evidence-based medicine, and honoring patients’ wishes. The information gathered may provide insight into how providers can incorporate shared decision-making into their practice.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of obstetric anesthesia\",\"volume\":\"61 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104294\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of obstetric anesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959289X24003066\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of obstetric anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959289X24003066","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:研究发现,不同种族、民族和地理位置的患者在使用神经镇痛分娩时存在广泛差异。然而,对决定不使用神经管镇痛分娩的患者层面因素的研究却很有限:我们于 2022 年 10 月 1 日至 2023 年 5 月 30 日在纽约市的一家医疗中心进行了半结构化访谈。参与者均经阴道分娩,并选择不接受神经镇痛分娩。在完成访谈后,还询问了结构化的人口统计学问题。我们对访谈进行了录音和逐字记录。我们对数据进行了分析,并根据基础理论将回答分为不同的主题:我们确定了五个主题,涵盖了参与者在决定不接受神经镇痛分娩时所考虑的主要因素:对自然分娩体验的偏好;有能力和支持性的分娩环境;对不使用药物分娩的准备或准备程度;对分娩疼痛的积极看法;以及关于硬膜外麻醉的信息、错误信息、知识差距和恐惧。所有研究参与者在访谈中都提到了这些重要主题:参与者描述了他们决定不使用硬膜外麻醉分娩的各种重要因素,我们将这些因素归纳为五个主要主题。我们的研究结果可用于指导患者与医护人员之间以相互理解、循证医学和尊重患者意愿为中心的有效互动。收集到的信息可为医护人员如何将共同决策纳入其实践提供启示。
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
Patients’ perspectives on pain relief during childbirth and labor epidurals: A pilot qualitative study among women who chose to deliver without neuraxial labor analgesia

Background

Studies have identified widespread variation in neuraxial labor analgesia use by race, ethnicity, and geographic location. However, limited research has investigated patient-level factors in the decision not to use neuraxial analgesia for labor.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews at a New York City medical center from October 1, 2022, to May 30, 2023. Participants had delivered vaginally and selected not to receive neuraxial labor analgesia. Structured demographic questions were asked after interview completion. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analyzed data and grouped responses into themes according to grounded theory.

Results

We identified five themes encompassing the main factors participants had considered when deciding not to receive neuraxial analgesia for birth: preferences for a natural birth experience, an empowering and supportive labor environment, preparation or preparedness for birth without medication, positive outlook on labor pain, and information, misinformation, knowledge gaps and fears about the epidural. All study participants mentioned these overarching themes in their interviews.

Conclusions

Participants described various factors important in their decision to give birth without an epidural, which we mapped onto five primary themes. Our results can be used to guide effective patient-provider interactions centered on mutual understanding, evidence-based medicine, and honoring patients’ wishes. The information gathered may provide insight into how providers can incorporate shared decision-making into their practice.
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
4.70
自引率
7.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia is the only journal publishing original articles devoted exclusively to obstetric anesthesia and bringing together all three of its principal components; anesthesia care for operative delivery and the perioperative period, pain relief in labour and care of the critically ill obstetric patient. • Original research (both clinical and laboratory), short reports and case reports will be considered. • The journal also publishes invited review articles and debates on topical and controversial subjects in the area of obstetric anesthesia. • Articles on related topics such as perinatal physiology and pharmacology and all subjects of importance to obstetric anaesthetists/anesthesiologists are also welcome. The journal is peer-reviewed by international experts. Scholarship is stressed to include the focus on discovery, application of knowledge across fields, and informing the medical community. Through the peer-review process, we hope to attest to the quality of scholarships and guide the Journal to extend and transform knowledge in this important and expanding area.
期刊最新文献
Sacral erector spinae plane block for labor analgesia: a case report. Novel bimanual haptic simulator for epidural loss-of-resistance detection: a pilot study assessing movement strategies and performance across anesthesiologist experience levels. Readability, quality and accuracy of generative artificial intelligence chatbots for commonly asked questions about labor epidurals: a comparison of ChatGPT and Bard. Maternal exposure to general anesthesia and labor epidural analgesia during pregnancy and delivery, and subsequent neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. "This is how we do it" Maternal and fetal anesthetic management for fetoscopic myelomeningocele repairs: the Texas Children's Fetal Center protocol.
×
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