Top

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research article

Reproducing normative femininity: Women’s evaluations of their birth experiences analysed by means of word frequency and thematic analysis

Authors: Agneta Westergren, Kerstin Edin, Monica Christianson

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Given the significance of the birth experience on women’s and babies’ well-being, assessing and understanding maternal satisfaction is important for providing optimal care. While previous research has thoroughly reviewed women’s levels of satisfaction with the childbirth experience from a multitude of different angles, there is a dearth of papers that use a gender lens in this area. The aim of this study is to explore through a gender perspective the circumstances attributed to both women’s assessment of a positive birth experience and those which contribute to a lack of satisfaction with their birth experience.

Methods

Through the use of a local birth evaluation form at a Swedish labour ward, 190 women gave written evaluations of their birth experiences. The evaluations were divided into groups of positive, ambiguous, and negative evaluations. By means of a latent and constructionist thematic analysis based on word count, women’s evaluations are discussed as reflections of the underlying sociocultural ideas, assumptions, and ideologies that shape women’s realities.

Results

Three themes were identified: Grateful women and nurturing midwives doing gender together demonstrates how a gender-normative behaviour may influence a positive birth experience when based on a reciprocal relationship. Managing ambiguous feelings by sympathising with the midwife shows how women’s internalised sense of gender can make women belittle their negative experiences and refrain from delivering criticism. The midwifery model of relational care impeded by the labour care organisation describes how the care women receive during labour and birth is regulated by an organisation not always adapted to the benefit of birthing women.

Conclusions

Most women were very satisfied, predominantly with emotional support they received from the midwives. The latent constructionist thematic analysis also elicited women’s mixed feelings towards the birth experience, with the majority of negative experiences directed towards the labour care organisation. Recognising the impact of institutional and medical discourses on childbirth, women’s birth evaluations demonstrate the benefits and challenges of gender-normative behaviour, where women’s internalised sense of gender was found to affect their experiences. A gender perspective may provide a useful tool in unveiling gender-normative complexities surrounding the childbirth experience.

Downe S, Finlayson K, Oladapo O, Bonet M, Gülmezoglu MA. What matters to women during childbirth: a systematic qualitative review. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0194906. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194906.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Simkin P. Just another day in a Woman's life? Women's long-term perceptions of their first birth experience. Part I Birth. 1991;18(4):203–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.1991.tb00103.x.CrossRefPubMed

Bossano CM, Townsend KM, Walton AC, Blomquist JL, Handa VL. The maternal childbirth experience more than a decade after delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(3):342.e1–8.CrossRef

Karlström A, Nystedt A, Hildingsson I. The meaning of a very positive birth experience: focus groups discussions with women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):251. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0683-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Olza I, Leahy-Warren P, Benyamini Y, Kazmierczak M, Karlsdottir SI, Spyridou A, et al. Women’s psychological experiences of physiological childbirth: a meta-synthesis. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):1–11.CrossRef

Waldenström U. Women's memory of childbirth at two months and one year after the birth. Birth. 2003;30(4):248–54. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00254.x.CrossRefPubMed

Taylor A, Atkins R, Kumar R, Adams D, Glover V. A new mother-to-infant bonding scale: links with early maternal mood. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2005;8(1):45–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-005-0074-z.CrossRefPubMed

Creedy DK, Shochet IM, Horsfall J. Childbirth and the development of acute trauma symptoms: incidence and contributing factors. Birth. 2000;27(2):104–11. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-536x.2000.00104.x.CrossRefPubMed

Tschudin S, Alder J, Hendriksen S, Bitzer J, Popp KA, Zanetti R, et al. Previous birth experience and birth anxiety: predictors of caesarean section on demand? J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;30(3):175–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/01674820902789233.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Gottvall K, Waldenström U. Does a traumatic birth experience have an impact on future reproduction? BJOG. 2002;109(3):254–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01200.x.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Hodnett ED. Pain and women's satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(5):S160–S72.PubMed

12.

Goodman P, Mackey MC, Tavakoli AS. Factors related to childbirth satisfaction. J Adv Nurs. 2004;46(2):212–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2003.02981.x.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Sawyer A, Ayers S, Abbott J, Gyte G, Rabe H, Duley L. Measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13(1):108. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Thomson G, Feeley C, Moran VH, Downe S, Oladapo OT. Women’s experiences of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief methods for labour and childbirth: a qualitative systematic review. Reprod Health. 2019;16(1):1–20.CrossRef

15.

Waldenström U, Hildingsson I, Rubertsson C, Rådestad I. A negative birth experience: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth. 2004;31(1):17–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0730-7659.2004.0270.x.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Smarandache A, Kim T, Bohr Y, Tamim H. Predictors of a negative labour and birth experience based on a national survey of Canadian women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0903-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Johansson C, Finnbogadóttir H. First-time mothers’ satisfaction with their birth experience – a cross-sectional study. Midwifery. 2019;79:102540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2019.102540.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Nystedt A, Hildingsson I. Diverse definitions of prolonged labour and its consequences with sometimes subsequent inappropriate treatment. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14(233):233. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-233.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Rudman A, El-Khouri B, Waldenström U. Women's satisfaction with intrapartum care – a pattern approach. J Adv Nurs. 2007;59(5):474–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04323.x.CrossRefPubMed

20.

World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; Report No.: ISBN: 978–92–4-155021-5

21.

The National Board of Health and Welfare. Statistical Database for Pregnancies, Deliveries and Newborns 2018. Available from: https://sdb.socialstyrelsen.se/if_mfr_004/val.aspx.

22.

Carter SK. Gender performances during labor and birth in the midwives model of care. Gend Issues. 2009;26(3):205–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-009-9084-x.CrossRef

23.

West C, Zimmerman DH. Doing Gender. Gend Soc. 1987;1(2):125–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002.CrossRef

24.

Connell R, Pearse R. Gender : in world perspective. 3rd ed. Cambridge; Polity; 2015.

25.

Gilligan C. In a different voice : psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard U.P; 1982.

26.

Davis-Floyd R, Sargent CF. Childbirth and authoritative knowledge : cross-cultural perspectives. Berkeley, Calif: Univ. of California Press; 1997. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520918733.CrossRef

27.

Martin E. The woman in the body : a cultural analysis of reproduction. Boston: Beacon Press; 2001.

28.

Annandale E, Clark J. What is gender? Feminist theory and the sociology of human reproduction. Sociol Health Illn. 1996;18(1):17–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep10934409.CrossRef

29.

Martin KA. Giving birth like a girl. Gend Soc. 2003;17(1):54–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243202238978.CrossRef

30.

Cluett ER, Bluff R. Introduction. In: Cluett ER, Bluff R, editors. Principles and practice of research in midwifery. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier; 2006.

31.

Bryar R, Sinclair M. Signposting Future Developments in Midwifery Theory, Practice and Research. In: Bryar R, Sinclair M, editors. Theory for midwifery pratice. 2 ed: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.

32.

The National Board of Health and Welfare. Statistical Database, Health Care Practitioners, Sweden; 2018. Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Available from: https://sdb.socialstyrelsen.se/if_per/val_eng.aspx

33.

Kaufmann T. Introducing feminism. In: Stewart M, editor. Pregnancy birth and maternity care: feminist perspectives. Edinburgh: Books for Midwives; 2004.

34.

The Swedish Association of Midwives. Professional Code for the Licensed Midwife. 2018. Available from: https://storage.googleapis.com/barnmorskeforbundet-se/uploads/2018/05/Kompetensbeskrivning-for-legitimerad-barnmorska-Svenska-Barnmorskeforbundet-2018.pdf

35.

Westergren A, Edin K, Lindkvist M, Christianson M. Exploring the medicalisation of childbirth through women’s preferences for and use of pain relief. Women Birth. 2021;34(2):e118–e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2020.02.009.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Statistics Sweden MIS 2012:1. SSYK, Swedish standard classification of occupations reports on statistical co-ordination for the official statistics of Sweden; 2012. Available from: https://www.scb.se/contentassets/c9d055b6f2114b62bd23c33602b56da5/ov9999_2012a01_br_x70br1201.pdf

37.

Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):160940691773384.CrossRef

38.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRef

39.

Sandelowski M. Real qualitative researchers do not count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 2001;24(3):230–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.1025.

40.

Hildingsson I, Westlund K, Wiklund I. Burnout in Swedish midwives. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2013;4(3):87–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2013.07.001.

41.

Suleiman-Martos N, Albendín-García L, Gómez-Urquiza JL, Vargas-Román K, Ramirez-Baena L, Ortega-Campos E, et al. Prevalence and Predictors of Burnout in Midwives: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(2):641.

42.

Malacrida C, Boulton T. Women’s perceptions of childbirth “choices”. Gend Soc. 2012;26(5):748–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212452630.

43.

Fontein-Kuipers Y, de Groot R, van Staa A. Woman-centered care 2.0: Bringing the concept into focus. Eur J Midwifery. 2018;2(May):1–12.

44.

van Teijlingen ER, Hundley V, Rennie AM, Graham W, Fitzmaurice A. Maternity satisfaction studies and their limitations: “what is, must still be best”. Birth. 2003;30(2):75–82. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-536X.2003.00224.x.

45.

Davis-Floyd R. The technocratic, humanistic, and holistic paradigms of childbirth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;75:S5–S23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(01)00510-0.

46.

Freeman LM, Adair V, Timperley H, West SH. The influence of the birthplace and models of care on midwifery practice for the management of women in labour. Women Birth. 2006;19(4):97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2006.10.001.

47.

Keating A, Fleming VEM. Midwives’ experiences of facilitating normal birth in an obstetric-led unit: a feminist perspective. Midwifery. 2009;25(5):518–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2007.08.009.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Blaaka G, Schauer Eri T. Doing midwifery between different belief systems. Midwifery. 2008;24(3):344–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2006.10.005.

49.

Newnham EC, McKellar LV, Pincombe JI. Paradox of the institution: findings from a hospital labour ward ethnography. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1193-4.

50.

Newnham E, Kirkham M. Beyond autonomy: care ethics for midwifery and the humanization of birth. Nurs Ethics. 2019;26(7–8):2147–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733018819119.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Reproducing normative femininity: Women’s evaluations of their birth experiences analysed by means of word frequency and thematic analysis
Authors: Agneta Westergren
Kerstin Edin
Monica Christianson
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03758-w

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Reproducing normative femininity: Women’s evaluations of their birth experiences analysed by means of word frequency and thematic analysis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Correction to: Women with maternal near-miss in the intensive care unit in Yangzhou, China: a 5-year retrospective study

Prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibility pattern and associated risk factors for urinary tract infections in pregnant women attending ANC in some integrated health centers in the Buea Health District

A validation of the Postpartum Specific Anxiety Scale 12-item research short-form for use during global crises with five translations

Antenatal management and maternal/fetal outcomes associated with hyperglycaemia in pregnancy (HIP) in Uganda; a prospective cohort study

Pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic: an exploration of patients’ lived experiences

Multidisciplinary team efforts to improve the pregnancy outcome of pregnancy complicated with primary hyperparathyroidism: case series from a single hospital