Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?

Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Nicholls, Jacqueline [verfasserIn] David, Anna L Iskaros, Joseph Lanceley, Anne

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Consent Antenatal care Intra-partum care Healthcare professionals’ views Choice Women’s health

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s) 2022

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC pregnancy and childbirth - London : BioMed Central, 2001, 22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:22 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; day:25 ; month:02

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6

Katalog-ID:	SPR05051735X

Internformat


LEADER	01000naa a22002652 4500
001	SPR05051735X
003	DE-627
005	20230507115417.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230507s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR05051735X
035			\|a (SPR)s12884-022-04493-6-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Nicholls, Jacqueline \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s) 2022
520			\|a Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation.
650		4	\|a Consent \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Antenatal care \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Intra-partum care \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Healthcare professionals’ views \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Choice \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Women’s health \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a David, Anna L \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Iskaros, Joseph \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Lanceley, Anne \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC pregnancy and childbirth \|d London : BioMed Central, 2001 \|g 22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb. \|w (DE-627)335489087 \|w (DE-600)2059869-5 \|x 1471-2393 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:22 \|g year:2022 \|g number:1 \|g day:25 \|g month:02
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 22 \|j 2022 \|e 1 \|b 25 \|c 02

Indexfelder

author_variant	j n jn a l d al ald j i ji a l al
matchkey_str	article:14712393:2022----::aincnrdosniwmnhatdeiralwriatnt
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 doi (DE-627)SPR05051735X (SPR)s12884-022-04493-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Nicholls, Jacqueline verfasserin aut Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care? 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation. Consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intra-partum care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Healthcare professionals’ views (dpeaa)DE-He213 Choice (dpeaa)DE-He213 Women’s health (dpeaa)DE-He213 David, Anna L aut Iskaros, Joseph aut Lanceley, Anne aut Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb. (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 1471-2393 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:25 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 25 02
spelling	10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 doi (DE-627)SPR05051735X (SPR)s12884-022-04493-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Nicholls, Jacqueline verfasserin aut Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care? 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation. Consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intra-partum care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Healthcare professionals’ views (dpeaa)DE-He213 Choice (dpeaa)DE-He213 Women’s health (dpeaa)DE-He213 David, Anna L aut Iskaros, Joseph aut Lanceley, Anne aut Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb. (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 1471-2393 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:25 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 25 02
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 doi (DE-627)SPR05051735X (SPR)s12884-022-04493-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Nicholls, Jacqueline verfasserin aut Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care? 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation. Consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intra-partum care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Healthcare professionals’ views (dpeaa)DE-He213 Choice (dpeaa)DE-He213 Women’s health (dpeaa)DE-He213 David, Anna L aut Iskaros, Joseph aut Lanceley, Anne aut Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb. (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 1471-2393 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:25 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 25 02
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 doi (DE-627)SPR05051735X (SPR)s12884-022-04493-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Nicholls, Jacqueline verfasserin aut Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care? 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation. Consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intra-partum care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Healthcare professionals’ views (dpeaa)DE-He213 Choice (dpeaa)DE-He213 Women’s health (dpeaa)DE-He213 David, Anna L aut Iskaros, Joseph aut Lanceley, Anne aut Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb. (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 1471-2393 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:25 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 25 02
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 doi (DE-627)SPR05051735X (SPR)s12884-022-04493-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Nicholls, Jacqueline verfasserin aut Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care? 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2022 Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation. Consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intra-partum care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Healthcare professionals’ views (dpeaa)DE-He213 Choice (dpeaa)DE-He213 Women’s health (dpeaa)DE-He213 David, Anna L aut Iskaros, Joseph aut Lanceley, Anne aut Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb. (DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5 1471-2393 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:25 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 25 02
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth 22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb. volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:25 month:02
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC pregnancy and childbirth 22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb. volume:22 year:2022 number:1 day:25 month:02
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Consent Antenatal care Intra-partum care Healthcare professionals’ views Choice Women’s health
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC pregnancy and childbirth
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Nicholls, Jacqueline @@aut@@ David, Anna L @@aut@@ Iskaros, Joseph @@aut@@ Lanceley, Anne @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-02-25T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	335489087
id	SPR05051735X
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR05051735X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230507115417.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230507s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR05051735X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12884-022-04493-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nicholls, Jacqueline</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Consent</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Antenatal care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Intra-partum care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Healthcare professionals’ views</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Choice</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Women’s health</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">David, Anna L</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Iskaros, Joseph</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lanceley, Anne</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC pregnancy and childbirth</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335489087</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059869-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2393</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:25</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">25</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Nicholls, Jacqueline
spellingShingle	Nicholls, Jacqueline misc Consent misc Antenatal care misc Intra-partum care misc Healthcare professionals’ views misc Choice misc Women’s health Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?
authorStr	Nicholls, Jacqueline
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)335489087
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1471-2393
topic_title	Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care? Consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Antenatal care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Intra-partum care (dpeaa)DE-He213 Healthcare professionals’ views (dpeaa)DE-He213 Choice (dpeaa)DE-He213 Women’s health (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Consent misc Antenatal care misc Intra-partum care misc Healthcare professionals’ views misc Choice misc Women’s health
topic_unstemmed	misc Consent misc Antenatal care misc Intra-partum care misc Healthcare professionals’ views misc Choice misc Women’s health
topic_browse	misc Consent misc Antenatal care misc Intra-partum care misc Healthcare professionals’ views misc Choice misc Women’s health
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC pregnancy and childbirth
hierarchy_parent_id	335489087
hierarchy_top_title	BMC pregnancy and childbirth
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)335489087 (DE-600)2059869-5
title	Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR05051735X (SPR)s12884-022-04493-6-e
title_full	Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?
author_sort	Nicholls, Jacqueline
journal	BMC pregnancy and childbirth
journalStr	BMC pregnancy and childbirth
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Nicholls, Jacqueline David, Anna L Iskaros, Joseph Lanceley, Anne
container_volume	22
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Nicholls, Jacqueline
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6
title_sort	patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?
title_auth	Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?
abstract	Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation. © The Author(s) 2022
abstractGer	Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation. © The Author(s) 2022
abstract_unstemmed	Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation. © The Author(s) 2022
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6
remote_bool	true
author2	David, Anna L Iskaros, Joseph Lanceley, Anne
author2Str	David, Anna L Iskaros, Joseph Lanceley, Anne
ppnlink	335489087
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6
up_date	2024-07-03T16:02:36.560Z
_version_	1803574372274798592
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000naa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR05051735X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230507115417.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230507s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR05051735X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12884-022-04493-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nicholls, Jacqueline</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Legal and social changes mean that information sharing and consent in antenatal and intrapartum settings is contentious, poorly understood and uncertain for healthcare professionals. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ views and experiences of the consent process in antenatal and intrapartum care. Methods Qualitative research performed in a large urban teaching hospital in London. Fifteen healthcare professionals (obstetricians and midwives) participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. Data were collectively analysed to identify themes in the experiences of the consent process. Results Three themes were identified: (1) Shared decision-making and shared responsibility –engaging women in dialogue is often difficult and, even when achieved, women are not always able or do not wish to share responsibility for decisions (2) Second-guessing women – assessing what is important to a woman is inherently difficult so healthcare professionals sometimes feel forced to anticipate a woman’s views (3) Challenging professional contexts – healthcare professionals are disquieted by consent practice in the Labour ward setting which is often at odds with legal and professional guidance. Conclusions Results suggest that there is a mismatch between what is required of healthcare professionals to effect an antenatal or intrapartum consent process concordant with current legal and professional guidance and what can be achieved in practice. If consent, as currently articulated, is to remain the barometer for current practice, healthcare professionals need more support in ways of enabling women to make decisions which healthcare professionals feel confident are autonomous whatever the circumstances of the consultation.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Consent</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Antenatal care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Intra-partum care</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Healthcare professionals’ views</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Choice</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Women’s health</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">David, Anna L</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Iskaros, Joseph</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lanceley, Anne</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC pregnancy and childbirth</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2022), 1 vom: 25. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)335489087</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2059869-5</subfield><subfield code="x">1471-2393</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:25</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04493-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">25</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400199

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Patient-centred consent in women’s health: does it really work in antenatal and intra-partum care?

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?