Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Reproductive Health
Published in: Reproductive Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Review

Discrimination against childbearing Romani women in maternity care in Europe: a mixed-methods systematic review

Authors: Helen L. Watson, Soo Downe

Published in: Reproductive Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Freedom from discrimination is one of the key principles in a human rights-based approach to maternal and newborn health.

Objective

To review the published evidence on discrimination against Romani women in maternity care in Europe, and on interventions to address this.

Search strategy

A systematic search of eight electronic databases was undertaken in 2015 using the terms “Roma” and “maternity care”. A broad search for grey literature included the websites of relevant agencies.

Data extraction and synthesis

Standardised data extraction tables were utilised, quality was formally assessed and a line of argument synthesis was developed and tested against the data from the grey literature.

Results

Nine hundred papers were identified; three qualitative studies and seven sources of grey literature met the review criteria. These revealed that many Romani women encounter barriers to accessing maternity care. Even when they are able to access care, they can experience discriminatory mistreatment on the basis of their ethnicity, economic status, place of residence or language. The grey literature revealed some health professionals held underlying negative beliefs about Romani women. There were no published research studies examining the effectiveness of interventions to address discrimination against Romani women and their infants in Europe. The Roma Health Mediation Programme is a promising intervention identified in the grey literature.

Conclusions

There is evidence of discrimination against Romani women in maternity care in Europe. Interventions to address discrimination against childbearing Romani women and underlying health provider prejudice are urgently needed, alongside analysis of factors predicting the success or failure of such initiatives.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Bustreo F, Hunt P. Women’s and Children’s Health: Evidence of Impact of Human Rights. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2013.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Jary D, Jary J. Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow: Harper Collins; 1995.
11.
Krieger N. Discrimination and health inequities. Int J Health Serv. 2014;44(4):643–710.
12.
Gruskin S, Cottingham J, Martin Hilber A, Kismodi E, Lincetto O, Roseman MJ. Using human rights to improve maternal and neonatal health: history, connections and a proposed practical approach. Bull World Health Organ. 2008; doi:10.2471%2FBLT.07.050500.
13.
14.
15.
Center for Reproductive Rights. From Risks to Rights. Realizing states’ obligations to prevent and address maternal mortality. New York: Center for Reproductive Rights; 2014.
16.
17.
Bohren MA, Vogel JP, Hunter EC, Lutsiv O, Makh SK, Souza JP, et al. The mistreatment of women during childbirth in health facilities globally: a mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS Med. 2015; doi:10.​1371/​journal.​pmed.​1001847.
18.
Bowser D, Hill K. Exploring evidence for disrespect adn abuse in facility based childbirth. Report of a landscape analysis. Washington: USAID Traction Project; 2010.
19.
20.
Blanchard J, Lurie N. R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Patient reports of disrespect in the health care setting and its impact on care. J Fam Pract. 2004;53:721–30.PubMed
21.
Trivedi AN, Ayanian JZ. Perceived discrimination and the use of preventative health services. J Gen Intern Med. 2006; doi:10.1111%2Fj.1525-1497.2006.00413.x.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Hancock I. The pariah syndrome. An account of gypsy slavery and persecution. Ann Arbour: Karoma; 1987.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Mihailov D. The Health Situation of Roma CommunitiesAnalysis of the data from the UNDP/World Bank/EC Regional Roma Survey 2011. Bratislava: UNDP; 2012.
35.
36.
37.
Biddle C, Schafft KA. Axiology and anomaly in the practice of mixed methods work: pragmatism, valuation, and the transformative paradigm. J Mixed Methods Res. 2014; doi:10.​1177/​1558689814533157​.
38.
Mertens DM. Mixed methods and the politics of human research: the transformative participatory perspective. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of Mixed Methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. p. 135–64.
39.
Mertens DM, Bledsoe KL, Sullivan M, Wilson A. Utilization of Mixed Methods for Transformative Purposes. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010. p. 193–214.CrossRef
40.
41.
CRD. Systematic Reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. York: CRD University of York; 2008.
42.
43.
Joanna Briggs Institute. Methodology for JBI Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014.
44.
45.
46.
Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, Macfarlane F, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of Innovations in Helath Service Organisations: A Systematic Literature Review. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2005.CrossRef
47.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; doi:10.​1186/​1471-2288-7-10.
48.
49.
50.
Shaw J, Downe S, Kingdon C. Systematic mixed-methods review of interventions, outcomes and experiences for imprisoned pregnant women. J Adv Nurs. 2015; doi:10.​1111/​jan.​12605.
51.
Bryman A, Becker S, Sempik J. Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: a view from social policy. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2008; doi:10.​1080/​1364557070140164​4.
52.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1985.
53.
54.
Walsh D, Downe S. Meta-syntheis method for qualiative research: a literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2005;50:204–11.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.CrossRef
56.
57.
58.
Janevic T, Sripad P, Bradley E, Dimitrievska V. “There’s no kind of respect here” A qualitative study of racism and access to maternal health care among Romani women in the Balkans. Int J Equity Health. 2011; doi:10.​1186/​1475-9276-10-53.
59.
Colombini M, Rechel B, Mayhew SH. Access of Roma to sexual and reproductive health services: qualitative findings from Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia. Global Public Health. 2012; doi:10.​1080/​17441692.​2011.​641990.
60.
Condon L, Salmon D. “You likes your way, we got our own way”: Gypsies and traveller’s views on infant feeding and health professional support. Health Expect. 2014; doi:10.​1111/​hex.​12214.
61.
62.
Iszak R. “Gypsy Rooms” and Other Discriminatory Treatment Against Romani Women in Hungarian Hospitals. Roma Rights Quarterly. 2004;3-4:7–11.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
Mannava P, Durrant K, Fisher J, Chersich M, Luchters S. Attitudes and behaviours of maternal health care providers in interactions with clients: a systematic review. Globalisation Health. 2015; doi:10.​1186/​s12992-015-0117-9.
69.
Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M, Ciapponi A, Colaci D, Comandé D, et al. Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. Lancet. 2016; doi:10.​1016/​S0140-6736(16)31472-6.
70.
71.
72.
Prati F, Crisp R, Meleady R, Rubini M. Humanizing outgroups through multiple categorization: the roles of individuation and threat. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2016; doi:10.​1177/​0146167216636624​.
73.
74.
75.
Truong M, Paradies Y, Priest N. Interventions to improve cultural competency in healthcare: a sytematic review of reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; doi:10.1186%2F1472-6963-14-99.
76.
Kowal E, Franklin H, Paradies Y. Reflexive antiracism: a novel approach to diversity training. Ethnicities. 2013; doi:10.1177/1468796812472885.
77.
78.
Roman G, Gramma R, Enache A, Parvu A, Moisa SM, Dumitras S, Loan B. The health mediators-qualified interpreters contributing to health care quality among Romanian Roma patients. Med Health Care Philos. 2013; doi:10.1007/s11019-013-9467-3.
79.
Tajfel H, Billig MG, Bundy RP, Flament C. Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1971;1:149–78.CrossRef
80.
Crisp RJ, Hewstone M, Rubin M. Does multiple categorization reduce intergroup bias? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2001; doi: 10.1177/0146167201271007.
81.
Prati F, Crisp R, Pratto F, Rubini M. Encouraging majority support for immigrant access to health services: Mutiple categorization and social identity complexity as antecedants of health equality. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 2016; doi:10.1177/1368430216629814.
82.
Hall NR, Crisp RJ. Considering multiple criteria for social categorization can reduce intergroup bias. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005; doi:10.1177/0146167205276084.
83.
Albarello F, Rubini M. Reducing dehumanization outcomes towards Blacks: the role of multiple categorization and of human identity. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2012; doi:10.1002/ejsp.1902.
84.
Prati F, Vasiljevic M, Crisp JR, Rubini M. Some extended psychological benefits of challenging social stereotypes: Decreased dehumanization and a reduced reliance on heuristic thinking. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 2015; doi:10.1177/1368430214567762.
85.
Prati F, Menegatti M, Rubini M. Reducing linguistic outgroup derogation: A matter of multiple categorization and intergroup contact. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2015; doi:10.1177/0261927X14567777.
86.
Rubini M, Moscatelli S, Palmonari A. Increasing group entitativity linguistic intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 2007; doi:10.​1177/​1368430207075156​.
Metadata
Title
Discrimination against childbearing Romani women in maternity care in Europe: a mixed-methods systematic review
Authors
Helen L. Watson
Soo Downe
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Reproductive Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1742-4755
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0263-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Reproductive Health 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Sexual and reproductive health services utilization by female sex workers is context-specific: results from a cross-sectional survey in India, Kenya, Mozambique and South Africa

Research

Feasibility of an altruistic sperm donation program in Canada: results from a population-based model

Research

Factors related to healthy sexual and contraceptive behaviors in undergraduate students at university of Seville: a cross- sectional study

Research

Determinants of modern contraceptive use among sexually active men in Kenya

Research

Experience in the use of non-pneumatic anti-shock garment (NASG) in the management of postpartum haemorrhage with hypovolemic shock in the Fundación Valle Del Lili, Cali, Colombia

Research

Utilization of mobile phones for accessing menstrual regulation services among low-income women in Bangladesh: a qualitative analysis