Dataset Information

Choosing where to give birth: Factors influencing migrant women's decision making in two regions of Thailand.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Choosing where to give birth can be a matter of life and death for both mother and child. Migrants, registered or unregistered, may face different choices and challenges than non-migrants. Despite this, previous research on the factors migrant women consider when deciding where to give birth is very limited. This paper addresses this gap by examining women's decision making in a respective border and urban locale in Thailand.

Methods

We held focus group discussions [13] with 72 non-Thai pregnant migrant women at non-government clinics in a rural border area and at two hospitals in Chiang Mai, a large city in Northern Thailand in 2018. We asked women where they will go to give birth and to explain the factors that influenced their decision.

Results

Women identified getting the relevant documentation necessary to register their child's birth, safe birth and medical advice/quality care, as the top three factors that influenced their care seeking decision making. Language of service, free or low cost care, language of services, proximity to home, and limited alternate options for care were also identified as important considerations.

Conclusion

Understanding factors that migrant women value when choosing where to deliver can help health care providers to create services that are responsive to migrants' preferences and encourage provision of relevant information which may influence patient decision making. The desire to obtain birth documentation for their child appears to be important for migrants who understand the importance of personal documentation for the lives of their children. Healthcare institutions may wish to introduce processes to facilitate obtaining documentation for pregnant migrant women and their newborns.

SUBMITTER: Tschirhart N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7117675 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Choosing where to give birth: Factors influencing migrant women's decision making in two regions of Thailand.

Tschirhart Naomi N Jiraporncharoen Wichuda W Angkurawaranon Chaisiri C Hashmi Ahmar A Nosten Suphak S McGready Rose R Ottersen Trygve T

PloS one 20200402 4

<h4>Background</h4>Choosing where to give birth can be a matter of life and death for both mother and child. Migrants, registered or unregistered, may face different choices and challenges than non-migrants. Despite this, previous research on the factors migrant women consider when deciding where to give birth is very limited. This paper addresses this gap by examining women's decision making in a respective border and urban locale in Thailand.<h4>Methods</h4>We held focus group discussions [13] ...[more]

PMID: 32240176

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of complementary medicine product (CMP) use by pregnant or breastfeeding Australian mothers is high, however, there is limited data on factors influencing women's decision-making to use CMPs. This study explored and described the factors influencing women's decisions take a CMP when pregnant or breastfeeding.MethodsQualitative in-depth interviews and focus group discussions were held with 25 pregnant and/or breastfeeding women who currently used CMPs. Participants' health literacy was assessed using a validated single-item health literacy screening question and the Newest Vital Sign. Interview and focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.ResultsParticipants were a homogenous group. Most had higher education, medium to high incomes and high health literacy skills. They actively sought information from multiple sources and used a reiterative collation and assessment process. Their decision-making to take or not to take CMPs was informed by the need to establish the safety of the CMPs, as well as possible benefits or harms to their baby's or their own health that could result from taking a CMP. Their specific information needs included the desire to access comprehensive, consistent, clear, easy to understand, and evidence-based information. Women preferred to access information from reputable sources, namely, their trusted health care practitioners, and information linked to government or hospital websites and published research. A lack of comprehensive, clear, consistent, or evidence-based information often led to decisions not to take a CMP, as they felt unable to adequately establish its safety or benefits. Conversely, when the participants felt the CMPs information they collected was good quality and from reputable sources, it reassured them of the safety of the CMP in pregnancy and/or breastfeeding. If this confirmed a clear benefit to their baby or themselves, they were more likely to decide to take a CMP.ConclusionsThe participants' demographic profile confirms previous research concerning Australian women who use CMPs during pregnancy and lactation. Participants' high health literacy skills led them to engage in a reiterative, information-seeking and analysis process fuelled by the need to find clear information before making the decision to take, or not to take, a CMP.

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions.MethodsWe evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM.ResultsA total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge.ConclusionsThe Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention).Trial registrationANZCTR376477.HighlightsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

Project description:BackgroundDespite improvements in maternal mortality globally, hundreds of women continue to die daily. The World Health Organisation therefore advises all women in low-and-middle income countries to give birth in healthcare facilities. Barriers to seeking intrapartum care have been described in Thaddeus and Maine's Three Delays Model, however these decisions are complex and often unique to different settings. Loreto, a rural province in Peru has one of the highest homebirth rates in the country at 31.8%. The aim of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to facility births and explore women's experiences of intrapartum care in Amazonian Peru.MethodsThrough purposive sampling, postnatal women were recruited for semi-structured interviews (n = 25). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. A combination of deductive and inductive coding was used. Analytical triangulation was undertaken, and data saturation was used to determine when no further interviews were necessary.ResultsFive themes were generated from the data: 1) Financial barriers; 2) Accessing care; 3) Fear of healthcare facilities; 4) Importance of seeking care and 5) Comfort and traditions of home. Generally, participants realised the importance of seeking skilled care however barriers persisted, across all areas of the Three Delays Model. Barriers identified included fear of healthcare facilities and interventions, direct and indirect costs, continuation of daily activities, distance and availability of transport. Women who delivered in healthcare facilities had mixed experiences, many reporting good attention, however a selection experienced poor treatment including abusive behaviour.ConclusionDespite free care, women continue to face barriers seeking obstetric care in Amazonian Peru, including fear of hospitals, cost and availability of transport. However, women accessing care do not always receive positive care experiences highlighting implications for changes in accessibility and provision of care. Minimising these barriers is critical to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes in rural Peru.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making, a communicative process to reach decisions based on informed preferences, evidence, and co-created goals, improves care satisfaction and patients' quality of life. However, shared decision-making has not been widely implemented in long-term care facilities, and few studies have examined how to promote the shared decision-making practice. This study aimed to identify the influencing factors of shared decision-making based on the Person-centered Practice Framework in long-term care facilities.MethodsA total of 300 staff (nursing staff, social workers, and personal care workers) in 13 Korean long-term care facilities participated in this study. Data from 280 respondents were finally analyzed, excluding respondents with missing values. Data were collected using structured questionnaires that included items on shared decision-making, personal factors (e.g., knowledge about dementia, person-centered care education, person-centered attitude, communication behavior, and job tenure), and care environment factors (e.g., person-centered climate, staffing level, effective staff relationships, supportive supervisors, and power-sharing). Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed using Mplus Version 8.8.ResultsThe mean shared decision-making score was 35.78 (range 8-45). Staff with experience of person-centered care education (β = 0.198, p = 0.034), a higher person-centered attitude score (β = 0.201, p = 0.007), and a higher communication behavior score (β = 0.242, p < 0.001) were more likely to report a higher shared decision-making score. In addition, staff who viewed their care environment as more person-centered were more likely to report a higher shared decision-making score (β = 0.416, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study highlights that personal (e.g., person-centered care education, person-centered attitude, and communication behavior) and care environment (e.g., person-centered climate) factors could influence shared decision-making for long-term care residents. These findings could be foundational evidence for facilitating shared decision-making practice in long-term care settings.

Dataset Information

Choosing where to give birth: Factors influencing migrant women's decision making in two regions of Thailand.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Choosing where to give birth: Factors influencing migrant women's decision making in two regions of Thailand.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets