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

Pregnancy related risk perception in pregnant women, midwives & doctors: a cross-sectional survey

Authors: Suzanne Lee, Des Holden, Rebecca Webb, Susan Ayers

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

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Risk perception in relation to pregnancy and birth is a complex process influenced by multiple personal, psychological and societal factors. Traditionally, the risk perception of healthcare professionals has been presented as more objective and authoritative than that of pregnant women. Doctors have been presented as more concerned with biomedical risk than midwives. Such dichotomies oversimplify and obscure the complexity of the process. This study examines pregnancy-related risk perception in women and healthcare professionals, and what women and professionals believe about each other’s risk perception.

Methods

A cross sectional survey of set in UK maternity services. Participants were doctors working in obstetrics (N = 53), midwives (N = 59), pregnant women (N = 68). Participants were recruited in person from two hospitals. Doctors were also recruited online. Participants completed a questionnaire measuring the degree of perceived risk in various childbirth-related scenarios; and the extent to which they believed others agreed with them about the degree of risk generally involved in childbirth. Main outcome measures were the degree of risk perceived to the mother in baby in pregnancy scenarios, and beliefs about own perception of risk in comparison to their own group and other groups.

Results

There were significant differences in total risk scores between pregnant women, doctors and midwives in perception of risk to the mother in 68/80 scenarios. Doctors most frequently rated risks lowest. Total scores for perceived risk to the baby were not significantly different. There was substantial variation within each group. There was more agreement on the ranking of scenarios according to risk. Each group believed doctors perceived most risk whereas actually doctors most frequently rated risks lowest. Each group incorrectly believed their peers rated risk similarly to themselves.

Conclusions

Individuals cannot assume others share their perception of risk or that they make correct assessments regarding others’ risk perception. Further research should consider what factors are taken into account when making risk assessments,
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Horlick-Jones T. Informal logic of risk: contingency and modes of practical reasoning. J Risk Res. 2005;8:253–72.CrossRef
2.
White O, McCorry NK, Scott-Heyes G, Dempster M, Manderson J. Maternal appraisals of risk, coping and prenatal attachment among women hospitalised with pregnancy complications. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2008;26:74–85.CrossRef
3.
Cook PA, Bellis MA. Knowing the risk: relationships between risk behaviour and health knowledge. Public Health. 2001;115:54–61.PubMed
4.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley M. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ Brit Med J. 2002;324:827–30.CrossRef
5.
Alaszewski A, Horlick-Jones T. How can doctors communicate information about risk more effectively? BMJ Brit Med J. 2003;327:728–31.CrossRef
6.
Chadwick R, Foster D. Negotiating risky bodies: childbirth and constructions of risk. Health Risk Soc. 2014;16:68–83.CrossRef
7.
8.
Johanson R, Newburn M, Macfarlane A. Has the medicalisation of childbirth gone too far? BMJ Brit Med J. 2002;324:892–5.CrossRef
9.
Coxon K, Sandall J, Fulop N. To what extent are women free to choose where to give birth? How discourses of risk, blame and responsibility influence birth place decisions. Health Risk Soc. 2014;16:51–67.CrossRef
10.
Reime B, Klein MC, Kelly A, Duxbury N, Saxell L, Liston R, Prompers FJ, Entjes RS, Wong V. Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth? BJOG Int J Obstet Gy. 2004;111:1388–93.CrossRef
11.
Monari F, Di Mario S, Facchinetti F, Basevi V. Obstetricians’ and midwives’ attitudes toward caesarean section. Birth. 2008;35:129–35.CrossRef
12.
Cherniak D, Fisher J. Explaining obstetric interventionism: technical skills, common conceptualisations, or collective countertransference? Women Stud Int Forum. 2008;31:270–7.CrossRef
13.
14.
Austin K. Constructions of risk and the maternal body: implications for midwifery practice. Midirs Midwifery Digest. 2017;27:23–6.
15.
Downe S, Finlayson K, Fleming A. Creating a collaborative culture in maternity care. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010;55:250–4.CrossRef
16.
Lane K. Midwifery: a profession in transition. Aust J Midwifery. 2002;15:26–31.CrossRef
17.
Browner C, Press N. The production of authoritative knowledge in American prenatal care. Med Anthropol Q. 1996;10:141–56.CrossRef
18.
Walsh D. Childbirth embodiment: problematic aspects of current understandings. Sociol Health Illn. 2009;32:486–501.CrossRef
19.
20.
Lee S, Ayers S, Holden D. Risk perception of women during high risk pregnancy: a systematic review. Health Risk Soc. 2012;14:511–31.CrossRef
21.
Lee S, Ayers S, Holden D. A metasynthesis of risk perception of women with high risk pregnancies. Midwifery. 2014;30:403–11.CrossRef
22.
Gray BA. Hospitalization history and differences in self-rated pregnancy risk. West J Nurs Res. 2006;28:216–29.CrossRef
23.
IBM Corp. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp; 2013.
24.
Melender HL. Experiences and fears associated with pregnancy and childbirth: a study of 329 pregnant women. Birth. 2002;29:101–11.CrossRef
25.
Melender HL, Lauri S. Fears associated with pregnancy and childbirth – experiences of women who have recently given birth. Midwifery. 1999;15:177–82.CrossRef
26.
Lee S, Ayers S, Holden D. Risk perception and choice of place of birth in women with high risk pregnancies: a qualitative study. Midwifery. 2016;38:49–54.CrossRef
27.
Turner CE, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Ludlow J, Benness C, Phipps H. Vaginal delivery compared with elective caesarean section: the views of pregnant women and clinicians. BJOG Int J Obstet Gy. 2008;115:1494–502.CrossRef
28.
Scamell M. The swan effect in midwifery talk and practice: a tension between normality and the language of risk. Sociol Health Illn. 2011;33:987–1001.CrossRef
29.
Scamell M, Alaszewski A. Fateful moments and the categorisation of risk; midwifery practice and the ever-narrowing window of normality during childbirth. Health Risk Soc. 2012;14:207–21.CrossRef
30.
Thirlaway KJ, Heggs DA. Interpreting risk messages: Women’s responses to a health story. Health Risk Soc. 2005;7:107–21.CrossRef
31.
Hendrickx L, Vlek C, Oppewal H. Relative importance of scenario information and frequency information in the judgement of risk. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1989;72:41–63.CrossRef
32.
Wood F, Prior L, Gray J. Translations of risk: decision making in a cancer genetics service. Health Risk Soc. 2003;5:185–98.CrossRef
33.
Healy S, Humphreys E, Kennedy C. Midwives’ and obstetricians’ perceptions of risk and its impact on clinical practice and decision-making in labour: an integrative review. Women Birth. 2016;29:107–16.CrossRef
34.
Renn O. The contribution of different types of knowledge towards understanding, sharing and communication risk concepts. Catalan J Comm Cult Stud. 2010;2:177–95.CrossRef
35.
Healy S, Humphreys E, Kennedy C. A qualitative exploration of how midwives’ and obstetricians’ perception of risk affects care practices for low-risk women and normal birth. Women Birth. 2017;30:367–75.CrossRef
36.
Howarth AM, Swain NR, Treharne GJ. First-time mothers’ perspectives on relationships with and between midwives and doctors: insights from a qualitative study of giving birth in New Zealand. Midwifery. 2012;28:489–94.CrossRef
37.
Nickerson R. How we know – and sometimes misjudge – what others know: imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychol Bull. 1999;125:737–59.CrossRef
38.
Pronin E. How we see ourselves and how we see others. Science. 2008;320:1177–80.CrossRef
39.
Hall WA, Tomkinson J, Klein MC. Canadian care providers and pregnant women’s approaches to managing birth: minimizing risk while maximizing integrity. Qual Health Res. 2012;22:575–86.CrossRef
40.
Cannella D, Auerbach A, Lobel M. Predicting birth outcomes: together, mother and health care provider know best. J Psychosom Res. 2013;75:299–304.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Pregnancy related risk perception in pregnant women, midwives & doctors: a cross-sectional survey
Authors
Suzanne Lee
Des Holden
Rebecca Webb
Susan Ayers
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/s12884-019-2467-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Perspectives and pregnancy outcomes of maternal Ramadan fasting in the second trimester of pregnancy

Study protocol

The PRogram In Support of Moms (PRISM): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of two active interventions addressing perinatal depression in obstetric settings

Study protocol

My Baby’s Movements: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial to raise maternal awareness of fetal movements during pregnancy study protocol

Research article

A review of surrogate motherhood regulation in south American countries: pointing to a need for an international legal framework

Research article

Methodology for sampling women at high maternal risk in administrative data

Research article

How can engagement of adolescents in antenatal care be enhanced? Learning from the perspectives of young mothers in Ghana and Tanzania