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
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Co-producing childbirth knowledge: a qualitative study of birth stories in antenatal sessions

Author: Leah de Quattro

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Birth stories surround pregnant women. Existing research on childbirth knowledge suggests that personal accounts from family and friends play a foundational role upon which other information builds. However, among the handful of studies that specifically address the educational role of birth stories, stories appeared to have little impact on knowledge creation. This paper engages with this discussion by exploring how birth stories contributed to the co-construction of birth knowledge within the specific context of antenatal sessions. Findings draw from the pilot study of a project which seeks to understand how women use collective approaches to co-produce birth knowledge.

Method

Research data drew from participant observation of group-led Homebirth sessions (25 participants) and teacher-led National Childbirth Trust classes (18 participants). The researcher analysed transcripts using template analysis, a form of thematic content analysis, with principles from feminist ethnography and narrative analysis.

Results

Storytelling proved central to mother-to-mother antenatal group practices, providing not only information, but also a means for understanding. This educational work took place through various mechanisms: Stories (re)shaped expectations, shared practical techniques, navigated different truth claims and approaches to knowledge, and helped build supportive communities of parents. These findings emerged more prominently in group-led sessions compared to teacher-led sessions.

Conclusion

Compared to teacher-led norms, storytelling and other collective approaches to antenatal education provide additional resources to childbearing women. As dialogic, complex and flexible learning tools, stories offer uniquely diverse, credible and supportive messages. The next phase of this project will further investigate these findings, explore informal collective practices, and seek to evaluate the impact of collective knowledge on childbirth experiences.
Literature
1.
Weston R. The influence of birth stories from friends and family members on primigravid women. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest. 2001;11:495–50.
2.
3.
Dahlen H, Barclay L, Homer C. Preparing for the first birth: mothers’ experiences at home and in Hospital in Australia. J PerinatEduc. 2008;17(4):21–32.
4.
Kingdon C, Neilson J, Singleton V, Gyte G, Hart A, Gabbay M, Lavender T. Choice and birth method: mixed-method study of caesarean delivery for maternal request. BJOG. 2009;116(7):886–95.PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Simkin P. Just another day in a woman’s life? Part II: nature and consistency of women’s long-term memories of their first birth experiences. Birth. 1992;19:64–81.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Callister L. Making meaning: Women’s birth narratives. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2004;33(4):508–18.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Carston A, Cabot C, Greyson D, Shannon K, Duff P, Shoveller J. A narrative analysis of the birth stories of early-age mothers. Soc Health Illn. 2017;39(6):816–31.CrossRef
9.
DiMatteo R, Kahn K, Berry S. Narratives of birth and the postpartum: analysis of the focus group responses of new mothers. Birth. 1993;20(4):204–11.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Cosslett T. Women writing childbirth: modern discourses of motherhood. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1994.
11.
Pollock D. Telling bodies, performing birth: everyday narratives of childbirth. New York: Colombia University Press; 1999.
12.
Davis-Floyd R. Birth as an American rite of passage. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2003.
13.
Bylund C. Mothers’ involvement in decision making during childbirth. Health Commun. 2005;18(1):23–39.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Aston M. Learning to be a normal mother: empowerment and pedagogy in postpartum classes. Public Health Nurs. 2002;19(4):284–93.PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Antenatal care: Routine care for the healthy pregnant woman. 2nd ed. London: RCOG Press; 2008.
17.
Reed B, Walton C. The Albany midwifery practice. In: Davis-Floyd R, Barclay L, Davis B, Tritten J, editors. Birth models that work. Berkley: University of California Press; 2009. p. 141–59.CrossRef
18.
Singh D, Newburn M. Access to maternity information and support: the experiences and needs of women before and after giving birth. London: NCT; 2000.
19.
Declerq E, Sakala C, Corry M, Applebaum S, Herrlick A. Listening to mothers III pregnancy and birth: report of the third national US survey of Women’s childbearing experiences. New York: Childbirth Connection; 2013.
20.
Grimes H, Forster D, Newton M. Sources of information used by women during pregnancy to meet their information needs. Midwifery. 2014;30:26–33.CrossRef
21.
Davis-Floyd R, Davis E. Intuition as authoritative knowledge in midwifery and homebirth. Med Anthropol Q. 1996;10(2):237–69.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Nolan M. Home birth: the politics of difficult choices. London: Routledge; 2011.
23.
Sargent C, Stark N. Childbirth education and childbirth models: parental perspectives on control, anesthesia, and technological intervention in the birth process. Med Anthropol Q. 1989;3(1):36–51.CrossRef
24.
Morton C, Hsu C. Contemporary dilemmas in American childbirth education: findings from a comparative ethnographic study. J Perinat Educ. 2007;16(62):25–37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Belenky M, Clinchy B, Goldberger N, Tarule J. Women’s ways of knowing: the development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc.; 1986.
26.
Tarule J, Mattuck J. Voice in dialogue: collaborative ways of knowing. In: Goldberger N, Tarule J, Clinchy B, Belenky M, editors. Knowledge, difference and power. New York: Basic Books, vol. 1996; 1996. p. 274–304.
27.
Hurtado A. Strategic suspensions: feminists of color theorize the production of knowledge. In: Goldberger N, Tarule J, Clinchy B, Belenky M, editors. Knowledge, difference and power. New York: Basic Books; 1996. p. 372–92.
28.
Haraway D. Situated Knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud. 1988;14(3):575–99.CrossRef
29.
Munro S. Decision making in patient-initiated elective caesarean: the influence of birth stories. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2007;54:373–9.CrossRef
30.
Kay L, Downe S, Thomson G, Finlayson K. Engaging with birth stories in pregnancy: a hermeneutic phenomenological study of women’s experiences across two generations. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(283):1–12.
31.
Frank A. Letting stories breath: a socio-Narratology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2010.CrossRef
32.
Luce A, Cash M, Hundley V, Cheyne H, van Teijingen E, Angell C. ‘Is it realistic?’ The portrayal of pregnancy and childbirth in the media. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(40):1–10.
33.
Chester L, editor. Cradle and all: women writers on pregnancy and birth. Boston: Faber and Faber; 1989.
34.
Kirkham M. Stories and childbirth. In: Kirkham M, Perkins E, editors. Reflections on midwifery. London: Bailliére Tindall; 1997. p. 183–204.
35.
Ochs E, Capps L. Living narrative: creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2001.
36.
37.
Evans G. Practicing participant observation: an anthropologist’s account. J Organ Ethnography. 2012;1(1):96–106.CrossRef
38.
King N. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell C, Symon G, editors. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. London: Sage; 2004. p. 256–70.CrossRef
39.
Riessman CK. Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: Sage; 2008.
40.
Nencel L. Situating reflexivity: voices, positionalities and representations in feminist ethnographic texts. Womens Stud Int Forum. 2013;43:75–83.CrossRef
41.
Visweswaran K. Fictions of feminist ethnography. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1994.
42.
Davids T. Trying to be a vulnerable observer: matters of agency, solidarity and hospitality in feminist ethnography. Womens Stud Intl Forum. 2013;43:50–8.CrossRef
43.
Comaroff J, Comaroff J. Ethnography on an awkward scale: postcolonial anthropology and the violence of abstraction. Ethnography. 2003;4(2):147–79.CrossRef
44.
45.
46.
47.
Akrich M, Leane M, Roberts C, Arriscado NJ. Practising childbirth activism: a politics of evidence. BioSocieties. 2014;9(2):129–52.CrossRef
48.
Odent M. Birth and breastfeeding: rediscovering the needs of women in pregnancy and childbirth. 2nd ed. Forest Row: Clairview Books; 2003.
49.
Oakley A. Essays on women, medicine and health. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1993.
50.
McNeil M. “Introduction,” “Being Reasonable feminists”. In: Mc Neil M, editor. Gender and Expertise. London: Free Association Books; 1987. p. 1–61.
51.
Downe S, McCourt C. From being to becoming: reconstructing childbirth knowledges. In: Downe S, editor. Normal childbirth: evidence and debate. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2004. p. 3–24.
52.
53.
McCarthy R, Winder V, Newburn M. Facilitating antenatal courses attended by asylum seekers and refugees. London: NCT; 2013.
54.
Walker D, Worrell R. Promoting healthy pregnancies through perinatal groups: a comparison of CenteringPregnancy group prenatal care and childbirth education classes. J Perinat Educ. 2008;17(1):27–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Borrelli S, Walsh D, Sipby H. First-time mothers’ expectations of the unknown territory of childbirth: uncertainties, coping strategies and ‘going with the flow. Midwifery. 2018;63:39–45.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Co-producing childbirth knowledge: a qualitative study of birth stories in antenatal sessions
Author
Leah de Quattro
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2605-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Validity of self-reported receipt of iron supplements during pregnancy: implications for coverage measurement

Research article

Oxytocin levels in low-risk primiparas following breast stimulation for spontaneous onset of labor: a quasi-experimental study

Study protocol

CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial

Research article

Current guidelines on the management of gestational diabetes mellitus: a content analysis and appraisal

Case report

Perinephric urinoma following spontaneous renal rupture in the third trimester of pregnancy: a case report and brief review of the literature

Research article

Maternal perceptions about caesarean section deliveries and their role in reducing perinatal and neonatal mortality in the Upper West Region of Ghana; a cross-sectional study