RESEARCH PAPER
Woman-centered care 2.0: Bringing the concept into focus
 
More details
Hide details
1
Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences - Research Centre Innovations in Care & School of Midwifery, Netherlands
2
Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences - Research Centre Innovations in Care, Netherlands
3
Sanquin Research, Netherlands
Publish date: 2018-05-30
Submission date: 2018-02-14
Final revision date: 2018-04-30
Acceptance date: 2018-05-22
 
Eur J Midwifery 2018;2(May):5
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
Woman-centered care has become a midwifery concept with implied meaning. In this paper we aim to provide a clear conceptual foundation of woman-centered care for midwifery science and practice.

Methods:
An advanced concept analysis was undertaken. At the outset, a systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, OVID and EBSCO. This was followed by an assessment of maturity of the retrieved data. Principle-based evaluation was done to reveal epistemological, pragmatic, linguistic and logic principles, that attribute to the concept. Summative conclusions of each respective component and a detailed analysis of conceptual components (antecedents, attributes, outcomes, boundaries) resulted in a definition of woman-centered care.

Results:
Eight studies were selected for analyses. In midwifery, woman-centered care has both a philosophical and a pragmatic meaning. There is strong emphasis on the woman-midwife relationship during the childbearing period. The concept demonstrates a dual and equal focus on physical parameters of pregnancy and birth, and on humanistic dimensions in an interpersonal context. The concept is epistemological, dynamic and multidimensional. The results reveal the concept’s boundaries and fluctuations regarding equity and control. The role of the unborn child is not incorporated in the concept.

Conclusions:
An in-depth understanding and a broad conceptual foundation of womancentered care has evolved. Now, the concept is ready for research and educational purposes as well as for practical utility.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Yvonne Fontein-Kuipers   
Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences - Research Centre Innovations in Care & School of Midwifery, Rochussenstraat 198, 3015EK Rotterdam, Netherlands
 
REFERENCES (69):
1. De Labrusse C, Ramelet A, Maclennan SJ. Patient-centered care in maternity services: A critical appraisal and synthesis of the literature. Women’s Health Issues 2016; 26(1): 100-109. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2015.09.003
2. CAM. Joint Position Statement. Nurses and midwives collaborate on client-centred care. Montreal: Canadian Association of Midwives. 2012.
3. Morgan S, Yoder LA. Concept analysis of person-centered care. Journal of Holistic Nursing 2012; 30(1): 6-15. doi: 10.1177/0898010111412189
4. Tanenbaum SJ. What is patient-centered care? A typology of models and missions. Health Care Analysis 2015; 23: 272-287.4. doi: 10.1007/s10728-013-0257-0
5. RCM. Position statement - Woman centred care. London: Royal College of Midwives. 2008.
6. Australian Government – Department of Health. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Antenatal Care — Module I. Department of Health, Canberra, Australia. 2013. http://www.health.gov.au/inter... Accessed August 8, 2017.
7. ACM. Australian College of Midwives philosophy for midwifery. 2011. www.midwives.org.au/scripts/cg... Accessed August 8, 2017.
8. Department of Health New South Wales. Maternity - Towards normal birth in NSW. North Sydney: NSW. 2010. www0.health.nsw.gov.au/policie.... Accessed August 8, 2017.
9. NICE. Pregnancy and complex social factors: a model for service provision for pregnant women with complex social factors. Clinical Guideline [CG110]. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2010.
10. Stuurgroep Zwangerschap en Geboorte. Een goed begin. Adviesrapport [A healthy start. Advisory report]. Den Haag: VWS. 2009.
11. NZCOM. New Zealand College of Midwives Philosophy and Code of Ethics. New Zealand College of Midwives, Christchurch. 2008.
12. Department of Health. National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services. 2004. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/.... Accessed August 8, 2017.
13. Homer CS, Passant L, Brodie PM, Kildea S, Leap N, Pincombe J, Thorogood C. The role of the midwife in Australia: views of women and midwives. Midwifery 2009; 25(6):673-681. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2007.11.003
14. Department of Health. Changing Childbirth, Part I: Report of the Expert Maternity Group. London: HMSO. 1993.
15. Sandall J, Coxon C, MacKintosh N, Rayment-Jones H, Locock L, Page L. Relationships: the pathway to safe, high-quality maternity care. Report from the Sheila Kitzinger symposium at Green Temple College October 2015. Green Templeton College Oxford. 2016.
16. Boyle S, Thomas H, Brooks F. Women’s views on partnership working with midwives during pregnancy and childbirth. Midwifery 2016; 32:21-29. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2015.09.001
17. Baas CI, Erwich J, Wiegers TA, de Cock TP, Hutton EK. Women’s suggestions for improving midwifery care in the Netherlands. Birth 2015; 42(4):369-378. doi: 10.1111/birt.12185
18. Nieuwenhuijze M, Kortsjens I, de Jonge A, de Vries R, Lagro-Janssen A. On speaking terms: a Delphi study on shared decision-making in maternity care. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2014; 14:223. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-14-223
19. Hermansson E, Mårtesson L. Empowerment in the midwifery context – a concept analysis. Midwifery 2011; 27:811-816. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2010.08.005
20. Leap N. Woman-centred care or women-centred care: does it matter? British Journal of Midwifery 2009; 17(1):12-16. doi: 10.12968/bjom.2009.17.1.37646
21. Fontein-Kuipers J, Boele A, Stuij C. Midwives’ perceptions of influences on their behaviour of woman-centered care: a qualitative study. Frontiers in Women’s Health 2016; 1(2):20-26. doi: 10.15761/fwh.1000107
22. Morgan L. Conceptualizing Woman-Centred Care in Midwifery. Revue Canadienne de la recherche et de la pratique sage-femme 2015; 14(1):8-15.
23. Maputle M, Hiss D. Woman-centred care in childbirth: A concept analysis (Part1). Curationis 2013; 36(1). doi: 10.4102/curationis.v36i1.49
24. Walker L, Avant K. Strategies for theory construction in nursing (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. 2005.
25. Sandall J, Soltani H, Gates S, Shennan A, Devane D. Midwife-led continuity models versus other models of care for childbearing women (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (8), CD004667. 2013.
26. Hupcey J, Penrod J. Concept analysis: examining the state of science. Research & Theory for Nursing Practice 2005; 19(2):197-208. doi: 10.1891/088971805780957378
27. Penrod J. & Hupcey J. Enhancing methodological clarity: principle-based concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2005; 50(4), 403–409.
28. Morse J. Exploring pragmatic utility: concept analysis by critically appraising the literature. In: Concept development in Nursing: Foundations, Techniques and applications, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Saunders. 2000.
29. Penrod J, Hupcey JE. Concept advancement: extending science through concept-driven research. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice.2005; 19(3), 231–241. doi: 10.1891/rtnp.2005.19.3.231
30. Mikkelsen G, Frederiksen K. Family-centred care of children in hospital – a concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2011;67(5):1152-1162. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05574.x
31. Hughes JC, Bamford C, May C. Types of centredness in health care: themes and concepts. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2008; 11(4):455-463. doi: 10.1007/s11019-008-9131-5
32. Morse, J.M. Analyzing and conceptualizing the theoretical foundations of nursing. New York: Springer Publishing Company. 2017.
33. Risjord M. Rethinking concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2009; 65(3):684-691. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04903.x
34. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 2009.
35. Hupcey JE, Penrod J, Morse JM, Mitcham C. An exploration and advancement of the concept of trust. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2001; 36(2):282-293. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01970.x
36. Pope R, Graham L, Patel S. Woman-centred care. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2001; 38:227-238. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7489(00)00034-1
37. Freeman L, Timperley H, Adair V. Partnership in midwifery care in New Zealand. Midwifery 2004; 20:2-14. doi: 10.1016/s0266-6138(03)00043-3
38. Homer C, Passant L, Brodie P, Kildea S, Leap N, Pincombe J, Thorogood C. The role of the midwife in Australia: views of women and midwives. Midwifery 2009; 25:673-681. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2007.11.003
39. Berg M, Ólafsdóttir A, Lundgren I. A midwifery model of woman-centred childbirth care- in Swedish and Iceland care settings. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare 2012; 3:79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.srhc.2012.03.001
40. McAra-Couper J, Gilkison A, Crowther S, Hunter M, Hotchkin C, Gunn J. Partnership and reciprocity with women sustain lead maternity carer midwives. New Zealand College of Midwives Journal 2014; 49:23-33.
41. Fleming V. Women-with-midwives-with-women: a model of interdependence. Midwifery 1998; 14:137-143. doi: 10.1016/s0266-6138(98)90028-6
42. Lee Davis D, Walker K. Case-loading in New Zealand: bridging the normal/abnormal divide 'with woman'. Midwifery 2011; 27:46-52. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2009.09.007
43. Newick L, Vares T, Dixon L, Johnston J, Guilliland K. A midwife who knows me: women tertiary students' perceptions of midwifery. New Zealand College of Midwives Journal 2013; 47:5-9.
44. Björkland A, Svensson T, Read S. Holistic and biomedical concepts of health: a study of health notions among Swedish occupational therapists and a suggestion for developing an instrument for comparative studies. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2006; 13(3):141-150. doi: 10.1080/11038120500527923
45. Goodrich J, Cornwell J. Seeing the person in the patient. The point of care review paper. London: The King’s Fund. 2008.
46. Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Seers K, Bick D. Protocol-based care: the standardization of decision-making? Journal of Clinical Nursing 2009; 19(10):1490-5000. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02605.x
47. ACEP. Quality of care and the outcomes management movement. Clinical and Practice Management. 2014.
48. Wagner M. Fish can’t see water: the need to humanize birth. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2001; 75(1):S25-S37. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7292(01)00519-7
49. MacKenzie Bryers H, van Teijlingen E. Risk, theory, social and medical models: A critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care. Midwifery 2010; 26:488-496. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2010.07.003
50. Hall J. “Spirituality, compassion and maternity care”. In: The roar behind the silence. London: Pinter & Martin Ltd; 2015. p. 94-97.
51. Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, Turner A, Hainsworth J. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. Patient Education and Counseling 2002; 48:177-187. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00032-0
52. Rijckmans M, Garretsen H, van de Goor I, Bongers I. Demand-orientated and demand-driven health care: the development of a typology. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 2007; 21(3):406-416. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00476.x
53. Antonovsky A. Unraveling the Mystery of Health: How People Manage Stress and Stay Well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1987.
54. Smith V, Daly D, Lundgren I, Eri T, Benstoem D, Devan D. Salutogenically focused outcomes in systematic reviews. Midwifery 2014; 30:e151-e156. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2013.11.002
55. Galvin K, Todres L. Caring and Well-being. A lifeworld approach. Oxon: Routledge. 2013.
56. Alwin DF. Integrating varieties of life course concepts. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 2012; 67(2), 206–220. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr146
57. Curry J, McGregor C, Tracy S. A systems development of life cycle approach to patient journey modeling projects. Medinfo 2007; 129:905-909. doi: 10.1109/iembs.2006.4398507
58. Frank JR, Snell L, Sherbino J, editors. Can Meds Physician Competency Framework. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. 2015.
59. Guilliland K, Pairman S. The midwifery partnership. A model for practice. Christchurch: New Zealand College of Midwives. 2010.
60. WRA. Respectful maternity care: The universal rights of childbearing women. Washington: White Ribbon Alliance Charter. 2011.
61. Gregor M. Immanuel Kant groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.
62. El-Ati L, Sandman L, Munthe C. Person centered care and personalized medicine: irreconcilable opposites or potential companions. Health Care Analysis 2017.
63. Feely C, Thomson G. Why do some women choose to freebirth in the UK? An interpretative phenomenological study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2016; 16(59). doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0847-6
64. Hewson B. Why the human rights act matters to doctors. British Medical Journal 2000; 321(7264):780-781. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7264.780
65. Schiller R. Why human rights in childbirth matter. London: Pinter & Martin Publishers. 2016.
66. RCM. Why midwives leave – revisited. London: The Royal College of Midwives. 2016.
67. MMPO. New Zealand’s MMPO midwives. Core activities and outcomes. Christchurch: New Zealand College of Midwives. 2012.
68. Hutchfield K. Family centered care: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2001; 29(5):1178-1187. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.00987.x
69. De Vries H, Mudde AN, Dijkstra A. The attitude-social-influence-self-efficacy model applied to the prediction of motivational transitions in the process of smoking cessation. In P. Norman, C. Abraham, & M. Conner (Eds.) Understanding and changing health behaviour: From health beliefs to self-regulation. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic. 2000.
eISSN:2585-2906